Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified—Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Mining Subsidence

Mr. Haynes: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made by British Coal regarding mining subsidence compensation claims.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): Since 1984, when British Coal revised its procedures, there has been a significant reduction in the time taken to process the majority of claims, and the number of claims outstanding has fallen by 22 per cent.

Mr. Haynes: May I suggest that the Minister has a look at the cases that British Coal is messing about with? British Coal is walking all over the people who have made claims. It is crushing them like insects. Reviews are in progress and it is now being said that there is no more time. The local hospital is now being messed about with. I warn the Minister that if he does not do something, I will be walking all over him.

Mr. Spicer: That sounds an uncomfortable experience. Of course, I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's involvement in a number of cases, particularly as I have just received a letter from him on the subject. I shall certainly take it up with British Coal.
Let me say more generally that as I was a candidate in the colliery town of Easington for 10 years in the 1960s and early 1970s, I am very much aware of the anxiety and distress caused by subsidence. I certainly intend that we should produce as soon as possible our response to the Waddilove report, which deals with those matters. In the meantime, I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that action has been taken to speed up the claims procedure in anticipation of that response.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Far from walking all over my hon. Friend the Minister, let me take this opportunity of welcoming him warmly to his position on the Front Bench. I am sure that he will bring great distinction to his office.
There is a very real problem over compensation. Is my hon. Friend aware that, in a constituency such as mine, many people are very upset because they find that British

Coal is effectively judge and jury in its own cause? It is always British Coal that determines whether subsidence has taken place, which I find very unsatisfactory. Will my hon. Friend bring that problem to bear in his review as quickly as possible?

Mr. Spicer: That will certainly be one of the outstanding matters that must be examined. It is the subject of a number of cases now before us which I am taking up with British Coal.

Mr. Rogers: Is the Minister aware that, during the coal strike, Mr. MacGregor met a group of Members of Parliament and said, in answer to a specific question from me, that the charges for subsidence would be held against the collieries that had created it, and would not be a charge upon other collieries or the industry as a whole? I ask the question because of the peculiar geological circumstances extant in the Nottinghamshire coalfield as compared with, say, south Wales. I do not see why the south Wales colliery should bear the subsidence costs of collieries such as Nottinghamshire. Is the Minister aware of that suggestion, or is it just another of MacGregor's lies? He told enough during the strike.

Mr. Spicer: I shall leave aside the hon. Gentleman's last remark. The whole question of funding and, indeed, allocation is one of the matters that we are having to decide in our response to the Waddilove report.

Electricity Industry

Mr. Tony Lloyd: oyd asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of the electricity supply industry.

Mr. Baldry: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give an estimate as to the timetable for the proposed privatistion of electricity supply.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): The Government are working to secure a very successful future for the electricity supply industry in the private sector. We are urgently tackling the important issues involved, and consulting widely, and will bring forward proposals as soon as this work is complete.

Mr. Lloyd: The Secretary of State believes that this question is about privatisation. The privatisation of the industry is very important, but the security andefficiency of electricity supplies are at stake. Those factors are of paramount importance to Labour Members. What guarantee will the Secretary of State give that a privatised electricity supply industry will still look to the British sector for its supplies of switchgear, turbines, generators and all the other important equipment, particularly as the Government have already failed to invest adequately in research and development in the industry?

Mr. Parkinson: We cannot force the CEGB to buy British. It chooses to do so because British goods are competitive, because British equipment is good and because it has a long tradition of working closely with the supply industry. If the industry is privatised, there is no reason why that should change, provided that British suppliers continue to perform as well as they do now. I do not believe that the change of ownership need give rise to a change of policy, unless the suppliers fail to perform.

Mr. Baldry: Does not the British Gas experience demonstrate that privatisation is good for the consumer,


that it is good for manufacturing industry—in that jobs have been created because manufacturers now pay a lower price for their energy—and that it is also good for the weaker members of the community, such as pensioners, who also now pay less for their energy? Is not the British Gas experience good for the taxpayer, who no longer bears the burdens that face nationalised industries? The sooner the electricity supply industry is privatised the better it will be both for the consumer and the taxpayer.

Mr. Parkinson: It was widely predicted that the only way that British Gas would increase its profits was by shoving up prices, but following the first financial results and the pricing formula that we imposed on British Gas it has reduced its prices by 4·5 per cent. That was because the price of its basic supplies had been reduced, but the benefit of those cost reductions was passed on to the customer, which Opposition Members predicted would never happen.

Mr. Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that since the privatisation of British Telecom there has been a sharp deterioration in the service, a sharp deterioration in the record of repairs, an increase in profits and an increase in charges——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is concerned with the future of the electricity supply industry.

Mr. Benn: Mr. Speaker, I am drawing a comparison with a privatised industry that has already moved into the private sector where none of the Secretary of State's claims turned out to be correct. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this will not occur when a privately owned monopoly in British electricity is brought into being by a Government who claim to believe in competition?

Mr. Parkinson: I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman. He is making an unjustified assumption. We recognise the need to introduce competition into the electricity supply industry. That is why we are studying the matter with great care. The right hon. Gentleman would be most unwise to assume that there is only one way to privatise an industry.

Mr. Rost: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to the Front Bench and wish him every success in a very challenging job. Will he assure the House that privatisation will not be along the lines of British Gas, but that a formula will be devised that will provide genuine competition and give a fair opportunity to private producers?

Mr. Parkinson: In approaching the subject of electricity privatisation there are many interests to be balanced: the work force, the customers and the public—the taxpayers—as the owners. It is because we are trying to find a way to introduce competition and at the same time to be fair to all those interests that the matter is receiving deep and detailed attention. We are not rushing towards making decisions that have not been thought out.

Mr. Wallace: Given the Government's enthusiasm for privatising the electricity supply system and nuclear power, particularly the PWR, why do they not put their convictions to the test and see whether they could raise on the market the private capital to build the Sizewell plant?

Mr. Parkinson: That is a typically muddled alliance approach to the problem. Until we have settled a structure for the industry and decided on the basis for privatisation such questions are pointless.

Mr. Speller: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on assuming his onerous office, but when considering the future of the electricity supply industry will he consider the potential input of energies that are alternatives to the normal coal or nuclear sources, particularly the amount of value that could be obtained from the many wind generators throughout the British Isles?

Mr. Parkinson: I am tempted to make the obvious joke, but I will not. The matter of renewables and power that is generated from wind is under close study. The House will have noticed that we have commissioned a pilot project to consider power that is generated by the sea and tides. We think that this is an important sector and it will receive careful attention.

Mr. Orme: Is the Secretary of State aware that the question of nuclear power and privatisation will be exceedingly important, particularly the accountability for nuclear power stations? Will parliamentary accountability be removed under any future legislation?

Mr. Parkinson: I cannot imagine any circumstances in which the regulations under which the nuclear industry operates could be weakened or in any way lightened. We recognise the very serious point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but there is another point. Chernobyl was a wholly state-owned station and Three Mile Island was wholly privately owned; ownership does not decide safety. What decides safety is the safety regime that is instituted and the rigid enforcement of it, which we are determined to do.

Energy Efficiency

Mr. Forth: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he plans to hold energy efficiency conferences.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): I am currently reviewing my Department's plans as to how best I can promote energy efficiency.

Mr. Forth: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks, but does he agree that the motive for adopting the energy efficiency programmes lies in the savings that can be made, which enlightened management should be able to understand by now? Does my hon. Friend share my suspicions that too many conferences often obscure issues rather than help people to come to rather more obvious conclusions about the benefits of energy efficiency?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that savings, profits, the labour force and the customer best promote energy efficiency. At the same time, as I said in my original answer, the Department has had a startling success in the past in making those points and we are looking at how we might make them again in the future.

Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the design of new buildings, as well as the satisfactory insulation of existing ones, is crucial in encouraging energy efficiency? May I have his assurance that his Department is in regular contact with the Royal Institute of British Architects to promote energy efficiency in new buildings?

Mr. Peter Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend and, as he will hear in answer to the next question, the design


of new buildings is of key importance. If at that stage energy effficiency is taken into account, it avoids many subsequent problems.

London Docklands

Mr. Gerald Bowden: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps are being taken to promote energy efficiency in the development of London's docklands.

Mr. Peter Morrison: London's docklands offer a unique opportunity for demonstrating that buildings can be designed and managed in an energy efficient way.
My Department is liaising with the London Docklands Development Corporation and other interested organisations in order to promote the efficient use of energy in London's docklands.

Mr. Bowden: I am encouraged by my hon. Friend's answer, but when considering energy efficiency in design and the appropriate improvement in building design, will he give some indication of the scale of financial savings and quantify some of the savings that may be achieved, for instance, in docklands by these new improvements in building design?

Mr. Morrison: It is estimated that about £3 billion a year can be saved in the heating and lighting of buildings in the country as a whole. It appears that, on the plans to date of office development, some £20 million a year could be saved in the London docklands.

Mr. Rogers: Although we would all applaud these savings, can the Minister give the House the assurance that no public money will be given to property developers in the docklands, and especially no grants to heat those £200,000 flats, and so on?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

North Sea Oil and Gas

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current level of production of North sea oil and gas.

Mr. Peter Morrison: North sea oil production in May was 2·6 million barrels per day, the same level as last year. United Kindom gas production has increased over the past few years and in May production was 3·2 billion cu ft per day.

Mr. Douglas: Would the Minister care to comment on how much the 130 million tonnes of oil production exceeds our requirement? Will he take a little look at the future and especially at balancing the needs of the British and especially the Scottish economies to secure employment with the oil and gas reserves available in the North sea? There is considerable well-founded speculation that the Brown Book figures underestimate oil and gas reserves by about 50 per cent. Would the Minister care to comment on that, because these issues are of particular importance to Scotland?

Mr. Morrison: Having looked back, I know that the hon. Gentleman has followed the industry and production on the United Kingdom continental shelf very closely. If I infer correctly from his question, he is asking for a depletion policy. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that, on current prices, that policy is more academic than practical.

Mr. Kennedy: What steps, if any, does the Minister's Department propose to take, or to encourage the Treasury to take following the feed-through effect of the welcome, if somewhat overdue, tax changes in this year's Budget? By the time those tax changes work through there is liable to be a gap or sag in the available contracts into 1988 for all the United Kingdom oil industry fabrication yards. Can further steps be taken by either the Department of Energy or the Treasury to ameliorate the effects next year, which will be a very rough year?

Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, my Offshore Supplies Office is closely in touch with the companies to which he referred. I think that we have a good and close working relationship with them. I have made it clear that I shall keep closely in touch on their behalf with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Rowlands: Does the Minister still believe his predecessor's prediction that we will be self-sufficient in oil until the year 2000?

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Gentleman had had the misfortune to listen to me in Glasgow two weeks ago at precisely the same hour on the same day, answering the same questions——

Mr. Rowlands: Answer the question.

Mr. Morrison: I shall answer the question. I explained then to an audience and an interviewer that to make predictions of that sort, even if one were an oil economist of the highest level, would be dangerous.

British Coal Enterprise Ltd.

Mr. Page: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest figure on how many jobs have been created by British Coal Enterprise.

Mr. Batiste: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the latest progress of British Coal Enterprise.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Up to the end of June British Coal Enterprise had helped create 18,506 new job opportunities in 1,399 individual projects. The company's investment of £31·5 million has attracted additional finance from other sources of almost £200 million.

Mr. Page: I welcome my hon. Friend to this portfolio and wish him every success. The figure that he cited of over 18,000 job opportunities is a considerable increase on the last figure quoted to me. It shows that the Government not only care about unemployment but, more important, are doing something about it. In view of that success, does my hon. Friend have any plans to increase this scheme? Are there any targets for which he will aim under that scheme?

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is quite right. The scheme has shown great potential for the creation of jobs in coal mining areas. In answer to the second part of his question, I understand that British Coal Enterprise Ltd. hopes for an increase this year to an annual rate of 15,000 new job opportunities.

Mr. Ashton: Is it not the case that job opportunities are often different from jobs? is the Minister aware that the figures that British Coal put out were very vague—like the Minister's own figures? Will he give us a breakdown


of the figures, constituency by constituency, so that we may establish which are real new jobs and which are duplicated jobs which have merely been shifted from British Coal to private contractors?

Mr. Spicer: I cannot understand why members of the Labour party carp in this way and it has been going on for several months now. The scheme provides great new prospects for jobs in coal mining areas. Why not accept it for what it is? Would the Labour party withdraw the scheme?

Mr. Ashby: Is my hon. Friend aware that many new and very good jobs have been created through British Coal Enterprise in areas of mining decline such as my constituency? Could BCE direct its attention to sites which are becoming disused and which need much work done on them if they are to be brought back into industrial use—sites for factories and so on? BCE could do so much in that area. Could it not take a more vigorous approach to such disused sites?

Mr. Spicer: That is obviously a matter for BCE, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's interesting idea to its attention.

Mr. Barron: How many of the 18,000 jobs have been filled by the 80,000 mineworkers made redundant since the end of the strike?

Mr. Spicer: That figure is not available.

Offshore Supplies Industry

Mr. Evennett: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards support of export initiatives in the offshore supplies industry.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I can assure my hon. Friend that I will be doing all that I can to promote and support the export initiatives in the offshore supplies industry.

Mr. Evennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that a secure home base is essential for exporting? Will he assure me, and the rest of the House, that his Department does all that it can to encourage the exporting industry?

Mr. Morrison: On the latter point, I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that that is the case. The offshore supplies industry has been through a difficult time, but in spite of that it received £2·2 billion worth of orders last year. The domestic market is still extremely strong, and that is the basis on which to build the export market.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: While the Minister is supporting the offshore supplies industry, will he ensure that the various organisations in the north-east of Scotland, with the experience and knowledge that they can bring to the industry, are given an interest in this matter?

Mr. Morrison: I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that everyone—in the north-east of Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom—will be given a proper hearing. However, at the end of the day, it will be for the oil companies concerned to decide, on sound commercial grounds, how to invest and from whom to buy the equipment that they need.

Dr. Michael Clark: Is my hon. Friend aware that ample rumours and a large amount of circumstantial evidence are circulating to suggest that foreign companies that supply

offshore services and supplies to this country are being heavily subsidised by their Governments? Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to support British companies which want to export to other oil-producing areas so that we may have a balance of international trade?

Mr. Morrison: I assure my hon. Friend that as far as possible I shall ensure that there is fair trading between countries. However, I should point out that at present 82 per cent. of North sea orders come from United Kingdom-based companies.

Mr. Ernie Ross: What is the Minister doing to ensure that we have a strong home base so that we can take advantage of export initiatives, and what is his Department doing to ensure that skills that are lying unused can be channelled into export initiatives?

Mr. Morrison: As I have just said, 82 per cent. of current orders for the North sea are from domestically based companies. That is a very high figure and has risen from 40 per cent. over the past years. The Offshore Supplies Office is doing all that it can to ensure that British-based companies have a fair share of North sea orders.

Sizewell B Power Station

Sir Trevor Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in placing orders for the Sizewell B nuclear power station.

Mr. Parkinson: Orders for the Sizewell B nuclear power station are a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I am advised by the board that as at 1 July contracts had been let to a value approaching £650 million.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his appointment at the Department of Energy, but I hope that he will show a great deal of enthusiasm for the nuclear industry, which is vital to the United Kingdom. Will he give us some figures for the employment that it has provided in various parts of the United Kingdom, thanks to the policy that the Government have pursued and that the nuclear industry has been able to pursue on its own?

Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, about 20 per cent. of our electricity is supplied by nuclear power stations, and Sizewell B alone should produce an average of 10,000 jobs for the next seven years, reaching 15,000 when the contract is at its peak. It offers the prospect of many very well paid jobs and long-term security of electricity supply.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister accept that in drawing an analogy with Chernobyl he scarcely does service to the standards and safety record of the British nuclear power industry? Does he accept that in my constituency there is deep apprehension about the prospect of privatisation of nuclear power stations? Does he agree that it is bad enough to sell off the family silver, but criminally irresponsible to start flogging off the family plutonium?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening carefully to what I said to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). Safety is determined, not by whether a nuclear power station is publicly or privately owned, but by the safety code and the strength with which it is enforced. Britain has a fine record, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that.

Mr. Jack: Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that British Nuclear Fuels can take full advantage of the Sizewell project to compete for pressurised water fuel orders?

Mr. Parkinson: British Nuclear Fuels is a very successful company, and 80 per cent. of its business is done overseas. That represented nearly £500 million last year. It is an important export earner. It does a good job and it provides important jobs in Copeland, which the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who was the Opposition spokesman on the environment during the previous Parliament, recognised and supported.

Mr. Jack Thompson: What proportion of the £650 million is committed to British contractors as against Westinghouse or other American contractors?

Mr. Parkinson: The overwhelming proportion of the expenditure is with British companies——

Mr. Thompson: How much?

Mr. Parkinson: I cannot give the exact figure, but it is well in excess of £620 million of the £650 million. One order for £17 million has gone to Southern Ireland for some steel fabrication, but, apart from that, orders have been placed overwhelmingly with British companies.

Coal Industry

Mr. Neil Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in labour productivity in the coal mining industry since March 1984.

Mr. Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are British Coal's latest figures for output per man shift.

Mr. Michael Spicer: For the week ending 20 June, average deep-mined revenue output per man shift was 3·74 tonnes, an impressive increase of about 54 per cent. on the average of 2·43 tonnes for 1983–84.

Mr. Hamilton: Is it not a pity that we did not have similar productivity figures in the coal industry in the past? If we had, there would be more jobs in coal today and miners would be even better paid. Is it not a shame that the Labour party supported every restricted practice that the Scargillite dinosaurs in the National Union of Mineworkers wanted to perpetuate? Has my hon. Friend had any representations from Labour Members on extending flexibility in working practices, for example, by supporting the six-day week?

Mr. Spicer: It is true that in the last days of the Labour Administration productivity was falling, and it is also true that the industry now has an impressive record. It results as much from new investment in the industry as from the closure of uneconomic pits. That investment has been £5·5 billion during the lifetime of this Government, and is currently £2 million per working day.

Mr. Ward: Those figures are impressive, but is it not a fact that they compare unfavourably with some of our foreign competitors? Is not the lesson the need for more investment, more productivity and, above all, support for the introduction of a six-day week?

Mr. Spicer: It is true that many countries produce

coal more effectively. Some coal-exporting countries producecoal at over twice our productivity rate. It is also true that it is absolutely essential that we continue to introduce new practices to make the industry more efficient.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister realise that output per man shift can be achieved by reducing manpower? Does he agree that the magnificent figures that we have achieved—there is no doubt that they are magnificent—are due to a reduction in manpower, and that, therefore, there is an increase in OMS'? Following his reply to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), irrespective of whether coal is cheaper abroad, what effect will privatisation of the electricity industry have on the coalmining industry?

Mr. Spicer: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. The answer to his second question is that it is the Government's intention and objective that British Coal should be so efficient and competitive that there will be no question of its not being able to take on foreign competition.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that the proposed six-day week will affect not only miners? Many thousands of people who live in mining villages and mining areas, often in rural areas, will be badly affected by noise, dirt and dust, lorries and Sunday night processions to the pit. Those matters also have to be taken into account, because six-day working does not affect just miners.

Mr. Spicer: Let me be quite clear about this. The six-day working week will mean that equipment, not men, will be working harder. Men will work the same or fewer days in the year, as is the case at the moment. A more efficient procedure for working mines is proposed and this will benefit those mines and the areas around them.

Mr. Andy Stewart: In welcoming my hon. Friend to the Front Bench, may I say that he will be welcome in my constituency when he is ready to make his first visit to a colliery. When he makes such a visit, will he explain to the people who work in the industry that six-day working means not necessarily longer working time but a higher financial return to the miners who produce the coal?

Mr. Spicer: I look forward at some stage to taking up my hon. Friend's invitation. It will not be my first time down a pit, as I was a candidate in a colliery constituency for 10 years and during that time I visited pits on many occasions. Certainly he is right in saying that a six-day working week will make the pits more effective, and it does not mean that men will be asked to work more during any one year than they are at the moment.

Mr. Eadie: The Minister must realise that while we welcome increased coal production it has to be matched by increased demand. A consequence of increased coal production must not be more pit closures. Does the Minister believe that it is fair competition for coal to be imported from Colombia, where it is mined by nine-year-old children? Does he think that coal imported from South Africa is fair competition? Does he agree that the message to the miners must be increased coal production and increased demand, but fair competition?

Mr. Spicer: I would put it slightly differently from the hon. Gentleman. Increased coal production has to be sold. Coal has to be sold as an economic product. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that the vast majority of coal imports to this country are special coking coals. It is


precisely because British Coal understands that that the Margam pit is being proposed. If it works properly, Margam will provide coking coal that will be an import substitute.

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will seek a meeting with the chairman of British Coal to discuss industrial relations matters; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Parkinson: I have had an initial meeting with Sir Robert Haslam and intend to meet him regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Mr. Strang: Does the Secretary of State accept that Opposition Members want to see better relations between British Coal and the NUM, but that one of the continued obstacles to progress is the victimisation of hundreds of miners and their families more than two years after the strike? Is he aware that some of the miners took the advice of his predecessor, went before an industrial tribunal and won their case, but are still suffering victimisation from British Coal?

Mr. Skinner: Come on, you have got your job back.

Mr. Parkinson: And the hon. Gentleman has never had one. Employment is a matter for the directors of British Coal. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (M. Strang) is aware that every case was re-examined after the appointment of Sir Robert Haslam. Representations on behalf of the men by their unions, managers and other parties were considered, and, at the end of the day, the board decided that more than 300 could not be reemployed. That is a matter for the board. However, I am satisfied that careful consideration was given to each case.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Royal Shakespeare Company

Mr. Blair: asked the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to meet the Arts Council to discuss the level of future funding for the Royal Shakespeare Company.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I met the chairman on 1 July and the Royal Shakespeare Company featured in our discussion.

Mr. Blair: Given that the Royal Shakespeare Company now finds itself in critical difficulties and that the Arts Council has suffered a cut in real terms in the funding that the Government have made available, what plans does the Minister have to extricate the Royal Shakespeare Company from its difficulties, or does he intend to abdicate responsibility for this great cultural institution?

Mr. Luce: There is no doubt about the standard of excellence of the Royal Shakespeare Company. It acquired a deficit of £1 million largely because it had a bad year last year at the Barbican theatre. The Arts Council is negotiating with the RSC about its future funding. There is one point that I should make. The Royal Opera House has reached a three-year funding agreement with the Arts Council, which should give it longer term stability. That could be a good basis upon which the Arts Council and the Royal Shakespeare Company could reach an understanding.

Mr. Jessel: Should we not build on our strengths? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Royal Shakespeare

Company is a great national asset which attracts to our shores visitors whose spending generates employment and income in other areas, such as hotels and shops? Does not the RSC deserve our full-hearted support?

Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend about the important contribution that the Royal Shakespeare Company makes, not least in its tours around the country enabling people who do not usually see Shakespeare performed by the RSC to do so. We give a grant through the Arts Council of £5·2 million. As I said, the RSC acquired a deficit last year arising mainly from losses at the Barbican theatre, and that is a matter for negotiation between the RSC and the Arts Council.

Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister recall that the Government gave the Royal Shakespeare Company financial stability on the recommendations of their own report, the Priestley report, three years ago? The Government having failed to live up to that undertaking, the RSC is more than £500,000 short of the level that was agreed. Do the Government not understand that it is not only a cultural crime to underfund and wash their hands of the RSC, but that it makes no economic sense? Not only did the RSC play to 1·6 million people last year, but it paid back to the Treasury in VAT and national insurance contributions far more than the £5 million that it received in investment from the Arts Council.

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of a Dickens character called Mark Tapley who said that it was predicting the worst that kept him so cheerful. That seems to be in line with the hon. Gentleman's character.
Following the Priestley report, going back to 1983–84, the deficit was written off by the Government of the day and the RSC's baseline was increased along the lines of the Priestley recommendation. One thing that was not agreed by the then Minister for the Arts—I think that he was right—was to index-link the RSC at the expense of other clients and companies. That would have been wrong.

Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not preside over the disintegration of one of our gratest national companies?

Mr. Luce: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's assessment of the company, and I give such an assurance.

Arts Council

Ms. Ruddock: asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met the Arts Council to discuss the future development of the Arts Council's work in education.

Mr. Luce: I discuss the council's work regularly with its chairman.

Ms. Ruddock: Does the Minister agree that, to build on the excellent arts education in schools, students must be in a position to go on to arts colleges and dance and drama schools? My constituents are currently being denied places in such institutions, despite having appropriate skills and educational standards, because the Government refuse to make such grants mandatory and students cannot afford the fees. Will the Minister, as a matter of urgency, meet the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that the Government invest in that vital area of arts education?

Mr. Luce: I am in fairly continual touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and


Science. Of course, the matter is principally one for him. I take the view that the introduction of the GCSE examination is an important basis upon which arts, in the museums and heritage world and in the performing arts, should be drawn in more closely with teachers' work. It is a fact that the Arts Council gives about £320,000 within its education unit to try to get teachers and pupils more interested in arts and heritage. That is the right contribution to make.

Acceptances in Lieu of Tax

Mr. Simon Coombs: asked the Minister for the Arts if he has any further plans for changing the rules for the acceptance in lieu of tax schemes.

Mr. Luce: There are no immediate plans for changing the present system for accepting items in liew of tax, although procedures continue to be kept under review.

Mr. Coombs: How does my right hon. Friend or somebody else decide to which gallery a work of art that is accepted in lieu of tax is to go? Will he look carefully to see whether the number of galleries and institutions to which such works can be sent can be extended so that all the regions can have a fair share of that kind of product?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend has made in important point. It is important that our national treasures, from wherever they come, should be accessible and available to people all over the country. It is, of course, for executors to express family wishes. Very often, a family will express a clear request that a particular object of art should go to a particular location. On other occasions they make an express wish, and it is up to me to decide. I agree with the principle that my hon. Friend has expressed.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present explosion in prices of works of art, which bear little or no relation to the retail prices index, has meant that there is a greater temptation to sell now and that there are fewer funds with which to meet such high prices? Do we not require a fresh examination of the whole basis of retaining works of art in this country?

Mr. Luce: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's analysis that the prices of pictures and objects of art are going up fast. There is no doubt about that. On balance, our procedures for the preservation of important objects of art in this country and the terms of our acceptance in lieu are working fairly well. As far as acceptance in lieu is concerned, we have a reserve fund of £10 million, upon which we can draw, in addition to a budget of £2 million in my programme for helping in that area. We have not yet used that full budget.

Photographers Gallery

Mr. Boyes: asked the Minister for the Arts when he last visited the Photographers Gallery.

Mr. Luce: I visited the Photographers Gallery on 23 March for the presentation of the Photographers Trust Fund prizes and bursaries.

Mr. Boyes: On behalf of all hon. Members who have an interest in photography, I hope that the Minister will accept that we are extremely grateful that he has made at least two visits to the Photographers Gallery. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr.

Fisher) has also visited the gallery. I am absolutely sure that the Minister has been impressed by what he saw in the Leicester Square gallery. Will he give an assurance that he will give a bursary of some sort to a young photographer to work perhaps in the House of Commons or somewhere else? Such action would encourage photography, which, as everyone knows, is a medium in which all people may indulge at low cost.

Mr. Luce: I know of the hon. Gentleman's intense interest in phtography, so much so that he encouraged me to join in the House of Commons competition.
However, having seen my photographs developed, I am reserving my right whether or not to enter the competition. I accept that photography is of interest to a great many people, and the Arts Council, the regional arts associations and the MSC between them provide something like £1·3 million to help photographers in this country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.

Mr. Baldry: If bursaries are given to photographers, surely that is exactly the type of area where private industry and enterprise can make a greater contribution. What we want as an encore are more speeches similar to the one that my right hon. Friend made last week regarding funding for the arts. What work is being done in my right hon. Friend's Department to consider how photographers in West Germany, Japan and the United States are supported by private enterprise and, indeed, how the arts in general are supported in that manner in those countries?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The more that bursaries can be funded from the private sector, the better. It is happening all the time. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about my speech. I only wish that the Opposition would acknowledge that the general election has taken place and the people have expressed their views. The arts world must go along with that, and I am sure that it will benefit from the fact that the private sector can offer a great deal of help in the raising of extra funds. The private sector has a great deal to do.

Leicestershire

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister for the Arts whether he will make it his policy to increase the level of funding for the arts in Leicestershire.

Mr. Luce: Funding for the arts in Leicestershire is a matter for the Arts Council and the Regional Arts Association. I am pleased to say that the Arts Council has been able to make a substantial increase in its grant to East Midlands Arts for activities in the region.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware of the magnificent work done by both the Haymarket and Phoenix theatres in Leicester and of the hard time that they have because they do not know from one year to the next how much funding they will receive or from where it will come? Is it not part of the Government's duty to ensure that magnificent organisations, such as these theatres, do not merely survive, but know how they will do so?

Mr. Luce: I know that for many years the hon. and learned Gentleman has taken a close interest in these two theatres. I would have hoped that he would welcome the fact—if he did not perhaps already know it—that the East Midlands Arts Association has now allocated


£664,000 to the Leicester Haymarket theatre. I would have thought that that would make a major contribution to the health of the theatre. Now that the Phoenix theatre has begun to fulfil some of the conditions that it was asked to fulfil, the East Midlands Arts Association has started to restore funding. I am glad that the county council has contributed £35,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Top Management Programme

Mr. Butler: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the operation of the top management programme.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): Yes, Sir. The top management programme was established in February 1985 for very senior staff from the public and private sectors. The civil servants involved are generally grade 3. The tenth programme is currently taking place. The programme has been very well received by participants and the organisations which send them.

Mr. Butler: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his reappointment, but may I ask him to ensure that the top management programme places a great deal of emphasis on interchange with the private sector so that civil servants can learn the lesson of Lord Young and how to solve problems rather than always concentrate on the obstacles?

Mr. Luce: The private sector participates in top management conferences and, of course, pays for them. I believe that the fact that the private sector is working side by side with civil servants during those conferences does both sides a great deal of good.

Mr. Janner: Is it correct that no member of any ethnic minority group has taken part in the top management programme? Has a monitoring exercise of any sort been applied to that programme in accordance with the code of the Commission for Racial Equality?

Mr. Luce: Offhand, I cannot tell the hon. and learned Gentleman whether members of ethnic groups have taken part in this management programme, but I can easily find the answer for him. The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that we attach a great deal of importance to ensuring that there is equal opportunity and that people are promoted into the service on merit. We have undertaken monitoring to see whether we can further the cause of equality of opportunity. However, promotion and entry into the service must be on the basis of merit.

Civil Servants (Initiative)

Mr. Gwilym: Jones asked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to reward initiative on the part of civil servants.

Mr. Luce: As part of our programme for improving efficiency in the Civil Service we are taking a number of steps to encourage qualities that can help staff perform more effectively in their jobs.
I would, in particular, refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23 April on our plans for strengthening the link between pay and performance. Those will supplement

the schemes already in existence under which, for example, rewards may be paid to staff for suggestions and technical inventions.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer and I should like to encourage him in that direction. There are a variety of different schemes that can be appropriately pursued with cash awards. Does my right hon. Friend agree that payment for initiative is as legitimate in the Civil Service as it is in commerce and industry?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is well aware that we are moving more and more towards performance-related pay within the service. A number of important decisions have been taken on that in recent months. In addition, there is a staff suggestion scheme, awards for the inventors of technical inventions and group incentive schemes. I believe that all that is moving in the right direction.

Mr. Beith: On the question of rewards and initiatives in the Civil Service, is it not important to protect the impartiality and integrity of the service? How will that objective be served by combining in one post, against the recommendations of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, the posts of Cabinet Secretary and head of the Home Civil Service?

Mr. Luce: I have no doubt about the impartiality and loyalty of the present Secretary to the Cabinet. In answer to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service a few months ago—I think it was in the autumn of last year—the Government made plain their reasons for accepting, on certain understandings and conditions, the combining of those two jobs.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: On the question of initiatives, incentives, rewards and performance-related pay in the Civil Service, will my right hon. Friend reassure me that a higher proportion of engineers and scientists are finding their way into the higher management grades of the Civil Service?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend puts his finger on an extremely important point. Certainly it is our objective to ensure that that happens. It is also our objective to recruit more people from science and engineering, because the Civil Service is short of such people. It is for that reason that we are introducing a flexible pay scheme that is designed to help the recruitment and training of those people.

Mr. Skinner: I wonder how those initiatives and bonuses will be paid to civil servants. Let us consider, for instance, somebody who works behind the counter at the Department of Health and Social Security, or in the unemployment benefit office. Would that person get more money based on more people being thrown on the dole by this Government, or would that person get more money by reducing the dole queues? Would National Health Service civil servants get an added bonus by closing down hospitals? How would incentives and bonuses be calculated?

Mr. Luce: They would be calculated on the basis of the merit of the civil servants' work and the objectives that they must fulfil. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the hon. Gentleman were to be paid on the basis of merit. However, as far as the Civil Service is concerned,


those payments will be based on whether civil servants fulfil their jobs effectively and well. Those who perform their jobs best will be given discretionary awards of one kind or another.

Civil Servants (Training)

Mr. Rowe: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the quality and quantity of training for civil servants.

Mr. Luce: Yes, Sir. On quality, our new programmes for senior staff and our plans for young people demonstrate that the Government are committed to high-quality training and development which improves operational performance. Quantity depends on need and relevance. In 1985–86 the Civil Service ran 35,000 training courses and provided 1·5 million training days, an average of three days' training for each civil servant.

Mr. Rowe: Is that not yet another example of the way in which the Government are taking the lead? Will my right hon. Friend turn his mind to considering the ways in which he could persuade industry and commerce, which are far behind our competitors in the quality and quantity of training provided to follow the Government's lead and, possibly, to share some of the resources?

Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend. One important part of our broad range of training schemes is that we are

trying to convey to the Civil Service the importance of carrying managerial responsibility, and we are more and more delegating responsibility through the financial management initiative. Our training schemes are designed to assist in that. Certainly the link with the private sector is of extreme importance.

Mr. Winnick: Are civil servants to be trained to decide which British residents arriving back from America or which American visitors coming to this country have a copy of Wright's book? As the book will be openly on sale in the United States within 24 hours, does the Minister agree that an interesting situation will arise when people can bring that book, openly and legally, into Britain?

Mr. Luce: We have more important things to discuss in relation to training.

Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strike by civil servants in Bolton over the introduction of YTS trainees? Will he consider ways in which the Civil Service could introduce more YTS trainees, as has the private sector?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. The YTS is as important for the Civil Service as for anywhere else. Today, only 300 people are involved with the YTS in the Civil Service. However, the Department of Employment is taking a lead in extending the scheme. I am glad that there is an understanding between the Civil Service management and the unions on this matter.

Sub Judice Rule

Mr. John Morris: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
Government policy in the light of the imminent publication in the United States of the 'Spycatcher' book by Mr. Peter Wright.
The matter is specific because the book is already on its way to American bookstalls and, indeed, because of the time factor, may already be there. It is only hours before it is here.
The matter is important because the Government have spent a great deal of taxpayers' money—if I may coin a phrase—in the courts of Australia, the Republic of Ireland and those within this jurisdiction, although, curiously, not in the courts of America. The capacity of the Government and their legal advisers to suffer judicial black eyes seems virtually inexhaustible.
The matter is urgent because the present Lord Chancellor, before his translation, like a bishop, to higher things, said that he was eagerly looking forward to explaining the Government's policy once the fetter of the sub judice rule was removed. The book, which has been the subject of so much litigation—I have nothing against work creation, even for lawyers, either by the Manpower Services Commission or by any other body—will be on our shores in a matter of hours. Whether or not the Government are right in the latest twist of litigation, the time has surely come to justify the value, or acknowledge the futility, of it all.
The House, traditionally, since at least the time of King Charles, has been the holder of the nation's purse strings. It is sufficiently important that the time has come when we should have the opportunity of saying, "Enough is enough" and when the world of "Alice in Wonderland", where the whole world, except a Briton who does not leave these shores or buy a copy from a traveller from America, can read the book in question is clarified. The time has come to justify this futile, farcical performance.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
Government policy in the light of the imminent publication in the United States of the 'Spycatcher' book by Mr. Peter Wright.
I have listened with care to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise a point of order that relates to the sub judice rule as it affects our proceedings. You will know that yesterday, following the decision of The Sunday Times to print extracts of the Peter Wright memoirs, the Attorney-General announced that he intended to bring an action against The Sunday Times for criminal contempt.
The House will recognise that the Government's handling of the affair has allowed moneybags Mr. Murdoch to move in with a big wallet to turn an issue of principle, an issue of official secrecy and open government, into a Fleet street scoop——

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order? If the hon. Gentleman is successful and in order, he may be able to raise this subject on the summer Adjournment motion.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: This morning I tabled four questions, three of which related to discussions and communications between The Sunday Times and the Government last week. I did that in the knowledge that Mr. David O'Callaghan of Turner Kenneth Brown, Solicitors for The Observer, telephoned Mr. David Hogg, the Deputy Treasury Solicitor, on Friday and told him that The Sunday Times had purchased the serialisation rights——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not, under the guise of a point of order, make a contribution which may well be in order at a later stage, but not now. I can deal with the sub judice rule if the hon. Gentleman will give me that opportunity.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Mr. Speaker, I——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to make a speech which he could make later.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have also tabled a written question to the Secretary of State for answer this Wednesday. I have asked whether the Government intend to issue an amendment to the general import licence, so as to render——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not raise matters of that kind. If he is concerned about questions that have not been accepted by the Table Office, he can ask for them to be referred to me.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am dealing with one thing at a time. The hon. Gentleman can ask the Table Office to bring his questions to my attention. It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to raise this matter on the Floor of the House in this way. Does he want to know about the sub judice rule?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Mr. Speaker, I tabled questions before the application was made to the courts. I put it to you that my questions are critical, because they deal with public concerns and anxieties. Is your ruling, or any ruling that you may make, likely to affect my right as a Member of the House to table questions to which the public want to know the answers?

Mr. Speaker: I can deal with that. As the House knows, have consistently ruled that there can be no question of proceedings in the Australian courts being treated as falling within the ambit of the sub judice rule of this House. The same would apply to any proceedings in the United States courts, although I have no knowledge of any such proceedings.
With regard to the publication of Mr. Wright's book in this country, I have to rule that that subject cannot be raised in the House at this juncture. There are four relevant groups of cases pending in the United Kingdom courts,


and all are inter-related. In particular, the appeal of the Attorney-General against the High Court judgment in the case of the Attorney-General v. The Independent, the London Evening Standard and the London Daily News is now being heard in the Court of Appeal. That case raises exactly the same issues as will apply in The Sunday Times case. In those circumstances, the House will not expect me to exercise my discretion by allowing reference to be made to any of those specific cases in the House, or in questions or motions.

Mr. Tony Benn: You said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that it might be in order to raise certain matters arising from the submission of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) for an emergency debate on the summer Adjournment motion, which is the next topic for business. That is, in a sense, an Adjournment debate. As you cited the cases about the sub judice rule, may I remind you of the plea that you made in another place when you were re-elected, when you said that you had made claim
by humble petition to Her Majesty, to all ancient and undoubted rights and privileges,
their relating to the House of Commons.
I have consulted "Erskine May", which states:
any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may he treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
I am putting it to you, Mr. Speaker, very gravely, that from what has come out, whether we read it in an American bookshop, The Sunday Times or The Independent, we now know that senior officials of MI5, in association with Jim Angleton of the CIA, tried to destroy an elected Prime Minister of this country during the 1970s. We also know that when such a charge is made in the United States, Congress brings it out into the open, whereas a British Government use legal devices to suppress the prosecution of a criminal offence brought to public attention by a public servant.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, no one wants to discuss the vendetta between the Government and the author of this book, but I submit that if you were to rule that in the debate on the Adjournment we could not discuss what has now come into the public domain, the House would be subordinate to what the Attorney- General wishes to do in his legal capacity. I seriously ask you to allow the House to discuss a matter which not only prima facie led to the obstruction of a previous Government, of which I was a member, but which, if it is not discussed now, would make a mockery of us compared with the American Congress, which is bringing covert action of this kind into the public domain because it is manifestly in the public interest.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney-General has informed us that the further appeal in Australia is to be heard on 27 July. As you know, that is after we begin the summer recess. That means that the case will continue in Australia and be concluded, yet the House of Commons will be unable to comment in any way whatever.
I wish to take up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), because

if MI5 officials were involved in destabilisation, in trying to destroy an elected Government and in smearing the Prime Minister of the day, such allegations should be debated by the House. These allegations may not be true and may simply be part of Mr. Wright's imagination, but if they are correct, it could well be that some of the officials in MI5 who took part in such subversive and criminal activities are still in MI5.
If Parliament is told that it cannot discuss the matter, we shall go into recess for three months and the case will he heard during that time. That means that while the country and the press will no doubt have an opportunity to discuss the matter, Parliament will be silent on the fundamental issue of parliamentary democracy. If we cannot even debate serious allegations from a former senior official of MI5 that the Government of the day were subject to destabilisation, that makes a mockery of our parliamentary democracy and our parliamentary system. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether we can have a statement from the Attorney-General at the first opportunity, and certainly before the House goes into recess.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps hon. Members now appreciate my request for a shorter recess. I fully understand the principle on which you say that if something is sub judice we should not discuss it, but surely the sub judice rule is designed to protect the rights of citizens who may appear in court and who would not want to have his or her case in any way jeopardised by talk inside the House. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would support that. However, the Government are now deliberately using the sub judice rule as a means of gagging the House to prevent its debating something of great importance. It becomes absolutely perverse when we know that this matter is being discussed in other countries and that the books will turn up on these shores. Therefore, there might now be a case for you to reconsider the sub judice ruling in respect of this case, because it seems to Opposition Members that the Government are manipulating the office of Speaker by getting you to defend a principle that allows them to gag the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am bound by the resolutions of the House. Let me repeat the rule that matters are sub judice if they are awaiting trial, or under adjudication by any court exercising a criminal jurisdiction, and should not be referred to in any motion—including a motion for leave to bring in a Bill—in debate, or in questions to Ministers. I am bound by that resolution passed on 23 July 1963. If the House wants to change the resolutions, it is a matter for the House. I have already said that I am not prepared to exercise my discretion in this case.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The book which is now to be published in the United States and which, apparently is now being distributed, will arrive in this country shortly. I am concerned only with whether, in view of what you have said and ruled, the book will be made available in the Library and who has control over that.
The book will be available to most of us very soon. I accept that security and the national interest matter. As you will know, Mr. Speaker—because you will have read the report of the Select Committee on Privileges—


we gave some thought to what is the security of the state and to who makes the judgment, the Government or others, in approaching you on such matters as the Zircon film. I have studied carefully the statement by the Prime Minister on 6 May, which I have in front of me. The right hon. Lady accepted the information given to her that the allegations made by Mr. Wright were untrue. If we are discussing something that is untrue, how can it be against the national interest for people to read it? So that we can make our judgment, will the book be available in the Library, although we cannot discuss it here?

Mr. Speaker: I have no idea. That will be a matter for the Librarian.

Dr. David Owen: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand your ruling, you are not prepared to accept the use of Standing Order No. 20 or any reference to the case in the debate on the Adjournment. However, would you be prepared to reconsider your decision on how the House might debate the issue if, as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said, the book comes into the country tomorrow and is then widely available, but the Government refuse to ban it or to take action in the United States courts? In those circumstances, would you be prepared to examine the whole issue afresh, including what you have said about the sub judice rule affecting not only the particular case in which the Attorney-General is now involved, but the three other cases? That strikes many of us as going very wide of the issue.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) first.

Mr. Benn: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that you are in a difficulty over the sub judice rule. May I put it to you, however, that, according to a proper interpretation of that rule, it might be wrong for hon. Members to comment during the summer Adjournment debate on the conduct of the editor of The Sunday Times in publishing extracts from the book, but it could not be wrong for hon. Members to bring to the Chamber matters which are already in the public domain through The Sunday Times, and which we expect to appear in their full form?
I am only anxious, Mr. Speaker that we should not make a fool of Parliament by an interpretation of a rule

that would deny to us uniquely what everyone else in the world is freely discussing, when it affects one of our former Prime Ministers and present Members of the House. May I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to narrow your interpretation and say that no one can refer to whether The Sunday Times, The Independent, The Guardian or the London Daily News is criminally culpable, but make it abundantly clear that we are allowed to speak about matters which touch upon Parliament, and which are now available to everyone—including your self, Sir—and rule accordingly?

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your pronouncement a few moments ago, I shall now proceed to the Library and ask for a copy of this book to be made available to me, on the presumption that neither the Prime Minister nor any of the Law Officers can forbid the Library to get hold of it.

Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question, but may I say——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why not?

Mr. Speaker: Because I am on my feet.
As the book is about to be published in America, I accept that this matter creates considerable difficulty for the House. I have already ruled that it is legitimate to raise anything that has come out in the Australian courts, but what should not be raised under our sub judice rules is the action that is pending before the British courts. I said at the beginning of my statement that anything that has come out in the Australian courts is fair game.

Mr. Benn: Or in The Sunday Times?

Mr. Speaker: That is before the courts in this country, but anything that has come out in the Australian courts is perfectly in order, and I do not think that the House needs to be too inhibited.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be called in the debate, I am not prepared to hear a speech from him now by way of points of order.

Sir Kenneth Bradshaw

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That this House requests Mr. Speaker to convey to Sir Kenneth Bradshaw, KCB, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of the House its deep gratitude for all his devoted work in the service of the House throughout a long and distinguished career.
I am confident that the motion unites the House in paying tribute in this time-honoured manner to someone who has held, with distinction, a number of important posts in the Clerk's Department over many years, and who has held for the past four years, as Clerk of the House, the highest office in the service of the House.
Sir Kenneth Bradshaw will be retiring at the end of August. By then it will have been 40 years, following war service, in which he was mentioned in dispatches, since he joined up, so to speak, in the Clerk's Department. I believe that that is longer than the continuous membership of any hon. Member now in the House.
To have maintained over such a length of time a record of total loyalty, integrity and devotion to the service of the House is a notable achievement in itself. To have done so with undiminished enthusiasm, never failing courtesy, and with, I believe the musical term is such 'brio', is a still greater one.
In particular, throughout his service—both as Clerk of the Overseas Office and in other posts, particularly in the Association of Secretaries General of Parliament—of which, I understand, he is currently the President—he has for many years done an enormous amount to forge international links and friendships between those who service parliamentary institutions. His hospitality and kindness in that work have become legendary worldwide.
Here in Westminster Sir Kenneth's name will also always be particularly associated with his concern throughout his service with improving the welfare and status of the staff of the House at every level. Always patient and considerate in negotiations, he has done much to resolve staffing disputes, like the protracted grading review, which had seemed intractable for many years. The present staff relations in the House owe much to Sir Kenneth's guiding judgment and personal concern. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree that in this, and in many other matters, the House of Commons Commission is deeply indebted to Sir Kenneth.
Another important and lasting contribution which Sir Kenneth, in collaboration with the present Clerk of Committees has made, has been his published work on the comparative procedural workings of Parliament and the United States Congress. This broke new ground and is still recognised as a standard work.
On the less formal side, I understand that Sir Kenneth has been a social pillar of the Parliamentary Golfing Society for many years. With regard to the musical life of Parliament, his vocal style in his occasional interventions in our proceedings once, I recall, led a journalist to describe him as
the last of the bel canto Clerks".
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that every hon. Member here will, as I do, wish Sir Kenneth every happiness in his retirement. He enters it with the profound gratitude of all those who recognise how much the work of this House of Parliament has depended throughout the

centuries on the proud traditions of the high office which he has so capably upheld, and which he now hands on to others, maintained and enhanced.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am happy to join the Leader of the House, and I am sure the whole House, in supporting the motion of gratitude for the distinguished service that has been given by the Clerk, Sir Kenneth Bradshaw.
Sir Kenneth has been a servant of the House since 1947 and has brought to all the offices that he has held in the course of his service that remarkable combination of commitment and dispassion that produces excellence in our British public and democratic administration.
The standard of Sir Kenneth's contribution is made more remarkable by the fact that it has continued for four decades. While it is true, as Lord Wilson reminded us, that a week is a long time in politics, 40 years must be an eternity to be above politics.
In those 40 years Sir Kenneth has performed, as the Leader of the House reminded us, in two spheres that are connected with this Parliament and international democracy. Those services have been distinguished and distinctive. First, it will be within the memory of many hon. Members that he contributed his capabilities as Clerk to the Overseas Office in this Parliament for four years. Further proof of his reputation among our fellow parliamentarians and those who serve them in other Parliaments is to be found in the fact that Sir Kenneth is President of the Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Both that general involvement and the particular role that he played as Clerk of the Legislature of Saskatchewan 11 years ago means that there can be few among the ranks of Secretaries General of Parliaments who can rival Sir Kenneth's parliamentary internationalism.
Sir Kenneth's second source of domestic and international distinction has been his co-authorship, with Mr. David Pring, of the excellent and now classical work, "Parliament and Congress". The reviewers who greeted the book back in 1972, and its reprint in 1981, commented on the lucidity, scholarship and readability of the book. I can testify to all three of those qualities. Before I went to the United States in 1976—during the recess—to do a series of lectures and television programmes on comparisons and contrasts between our Parliament and the United States Congress I naturally reached for this book, and when I read it its clarity and detail gave me the same sense of gratitude as would he felt by someone who thought that he was climbing on to a life raft and discovered that he had boarded a luxury liner. This work is everything that the reviewers said it was.
My copy of that volume is at home, but to refresh my memory this morning I borrowed the Library's copy. I intend to take it back, which is another breach of convention, later in the day. It is clearly a well-used book, as any hon. Member can see, and it is a testimony to the respect that the book commands among right hon. and hon. Members that, in all of its 412 pages, only one page is marked, and one would exaggerate to call it defaced. On the contents page there is the merest line of a ballpoint pen around one item: "Salaries arid Remuneration". Clearly, the book has not only lucidity but utility.
As hon. Members will know, those qualities are not confined to the book. Indeed, they have been the qualities,


together with many others, that have distinguished Sir Kenneth throughout our acquaintance with him. I am sure that anyone who has known Sir Kenneth will regard him as a friendly man, an excellent communicator and a complete master of procedure, utterly dependable in his judgment and advice. For all those reasons, but most of all because of the distinguished service that he has given our democracy and our Parliament, I am sure that all here and all who have worked with Sir Kenneth over those 40 years wish him a long, active and fulfilling retirement, with limitless golf partners and a limitless supply of opera tickets.

4 pm

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I am pleased to support the motion and to follow the Leader of the Opposition. As a former colleague of Sir Kenneth Bradshaw and the first Clerk of the House who was foolish enough to get himself elected as a Member of Parliament, I have profound respect for my more shrewd and more sensible former colleague. What the Leader of the Opposition has said is absolutely true. The privilege of being a servant of the House, whether as a Member of Parliament, a Clerk or official, is real. I learnt that privilege from, among others, Kenneth Bradshaw. He has been a fine servant of the House. I am honoured to have known him as a colleague and a friend, and he deserves well of the House.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I support the motion with enthusiasm. As Clerk of the House, Sir Kenneth Bradshaw has been unfailingly courteous and consistently helpful to hon. Members, including those from minority parties. He has shown that impartiality and independence of the Government which the House requires of its Clerks. He has embodied and advocated that high view of the Clerkship in his international activities as President of the Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments.
Sir Kenneth's Clerkship has coincided with many changes in the way in which the House is run. This is perhaps symbolised by the fact that, so far as I can recall, he was the first Clerk who was interviewed extensively for

the post of Clerk. He carried out that task in a manner that involved greatly extended managerial responsibilities, through the Board of Management—responsibilities which he discharged with great tact and skill. In doing so, he provided enormous assistance to the House of Commons Commission.
Those of us who worked closely with Sir Kenneth in that or in other spheres have come to regard him not only as an outstanding servant of the House but as a man of great integrity and charm and a congenial colleague. We all wish him the greatest happiness and activity in his retirement. We pay tribute to the work that he has done on behalf of the House.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In adding the support of the Scottish National party, I speak not only for the party's current Members in the House but for all those who have served since 1967. The Scottish National party has been continuously represented in the House since 1967, and that period spans some 50 per cent. of Sir Kenneth's service to the House. All of us have greatly appreciated his objective advice and courteous assistance over the years, and we wish him a long and happy retirement.

Mr. D. E. Thomas (Merionnydd Nant Conwy): I should like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made on behalf of minority parties in paying tribute to Sir Kenneth's work in the House. Inevitably, tributes of this kind are a celebration both of an individual's career and of the nature of our institution. It is perhaps appropriate that we should speak to this motion on a day when we have been debating the nature of our procedures and our rules of order. In adding my best wishes to Sir Kenneth in his retirement, I ask him to consider whether he will have the time to prepare a further edition of his excellent study "Parliament and Congress", because it might be influential in liberating some of our procedures.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, nemine contradicente,
That this House requests Mr. Speaker to convey to Sir Kenneth Bradshaw, KCB, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of the House, its profound appreciation of his forty years of devoted service to the House, and his maintenance of the highest traditions of his office.

Adjournment (Summer)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 24th July, do adjourn until Wednesday 21st October.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have not selected either of the amendments on the Order Paper, but they may be raised during the debate.

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. It has been reported to me that an hon. Member has been to the Library of the House and been told that the Librarian has been told that it would be inadvisable for him to obtain and make available in the Library a copy of the Peter Wright book. I should be grateful if you would look into this matter as the protector of the interests of all hon. Members.

Mr. David Winnick: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been asked a question, and I shall answer it. I do not know anything about this matter. I suppose that if such a book were to be ordered it would have to be ordered from overseas because it is not published in this country. I shall certainly look into the matter.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is another book, which is apparently banned in this country because the Government have tried to take action against the publishers, namely, "One Girl's War" by Joan Miller. Two weeks ago I brought to the attention of the House the fact that it was in the Library. I wonder whether the Government have acted on the latest book because they are displeased that this other publication is held in the Commons Library.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can usually speak for myself fairly effectively. I was the Member who went to the Library to put my name at the top of the list to read this fascinating book. I was told that the Library had been advised that it would be inadvisable to hold the book. I was given to understand that there was a letter from your Office, Sir, making that point.

Mr. Speaker: I assure the hon. Member that I know nothing about it. If he is first in the queue, I shall certainly be second.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I approached the Librarian on 7 July—last week—and asked him about the Joan Miller book in the Library so as to set the precedent for the arrival of Peter Wright's book. On 8 July, the Librarian wrote to me, saying:
My present intention is to retain these copies in the Library unless and until I am instructed to the contrary.
The Librarian has made it clear that he wishes to receive and retain in the Library books that he knows and recognises are the subject of legal action outside the House and that are not freely available due to legal restraints. I put it to you, Sir, that the only way Joan Miller's book can be removed from the Library is by resolution of the House. If the Government refuse to accept the Peter Wright book, they have an obligation to place a motion before the House calling for the removal of the Joan Miller book, thereby enabling Parliament to debate this whole matter in a way that it has been prevented from doing today.

Mr. Speaker: The Joan Miller book is in the Library and I do not know of any indication that it will be withdrawn. I have already dealt with the other matter. I shall certainly look into it.

Mr. Dobson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, in the absence of a Library Committee, you are the only person who has the authority in the House to instruct the Librarian whether or not to make that book available?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. The Librarian is an Officer of the House and, as such, he reports to me.

Mrs. Ray Michie: It is an honour to address the House. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to speak during this debate on the summer Adjournment.
It is my privilege to represent the constituency of Argyll and Bute, one of the most beautiful parts of the country. Many hon. Members will have holidayed there and returned refreshed and invigorated. It is, of course, a complete myth that it rains a lot and that the midges wear tackety boots. I assure those who are to visit Argyll and Bute that they will find much there to delight and that they will always receive the kindly, courteous and hospitable welcome that is the hallmark of the highlander.
I understand that it is customary in a maiden speech to refer to one's predecessor. I happily pay tribute to John MacKay for his work in the constituency, and I know that he was a loyal and conscientious member of his Government. Perhaps I owe him a special personal debt. He contested Argyll and Bute twice as a Liberal candidate in the 1960s and had he not joined the Conservative party I might not be here today.
Life has come full circle. I was born and brought up in the Liberal faith and philosophy and I owe my success in large part to the continuing example and inspiration of my father—the late Lord Bannerman of Kildonan. Better known in Scotland, in politics, in international rugby and in Gaeldom as Johnnie Bannerman, he cut his political teeth in Argyll at the 1945 general election. Many of the problems that he encountered remain. The islands still bear the burden of high transport costs, and the failure to introduce the promised road equivalent tariff for ferries means that the islanders are considerably disadvantaged as they strive to build economically viable communities.
The whole economy of Argyll and Bute depends on thriving tourism, farming, crofting, fishing and forestry. In particular, the small farm and croft form the basis of our rural way of life, which has an intrinsic quality of its own. It does not have to be justified and it stands strong against any value judgment.
The reference to farming in the Gracious Speech gives me hope that the Government will remember that in Argyll and Bute we do not contribute to EEC surpluses. It leads me to hope that the Government will defend the interests of the family farm, especially in the less-favoured areas, and that they will consider allowing crofters and tenant farmers to participate in the woodland and forestry schemes, and to reap the benefits currently enjoyed by the landlords.
In the months ahead we shall hear much about the so-called community charge which is, indeed, a poll tax. No modern Western country would even consider such an


unfair and regressive tax—last levied in England in 1381, it led to the Peasants Revolt. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will reconsider the injustice done to two particular groups of people. Crofters and the Church have traditionally enjoyed a 50 per cent. derating concession but the Government have so far adamantly refused to continue that concession with the poll tax. Consequently, an extra £1·3 million will be taken out of the crofting counties and the Church of Scotland will have to find an extra £333,000. That will deal a hefty blow to both groups.
During the election campaign we heard much about the amount of money that is being spent on the Health Service. However, I regret to say that that money has not been spent in Argyll where, for nigh on 40 years, Campbeltown and Oban have waited for new hospitals. We have a superb staff who give a high standard of service to patients, but they are being asked to do so in impossible and unacceptable conditions, and in old and crumbling buildings.
Another matter that is causing grave concern in my constituency is the recent notification by the Nature Conservancy Council of the designation of an extensive area—over 32 square miles—on the island of Islay as a site of special scientific interest. The NCC sets out 20 operations that are thought likely to damage the SSSI. This is extraordinary in that it will affect 49 farmers and crofters who have worked the land over the generations without any environmental damage.
I am told of the NCC's objection to a temporary access to the proposed experimental wave power station and that a farmer who wants to level hillocks for easy cultivation will require permission because they give shelter to the corncrake. Those are just two examples, but the list of restrictions bodes ill for the social and economic welfare of the island.
We must seek a proper balance between nature conservation and the interests of the people who live and work in the area. To that end, I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will urgently consider the establishment of a Scottish nature conservancy council. It is vital that there should be close co-operation, consultation and agreement between the public bodies concerned with planning and land use and those who are affected by the designation. The people of Islay are deeply upset and angry. They fear that in the end 65 per cent. of the land area of Islay will become eligible for designation, and, if that happens, depopulation could occur on a scale not seen since the infamous clearances.
Many of my constituents have a particular interest in the Gaelic language, as do I. The need for Gaelic to be given a status equal to English, which is now enjoyed by Welsh, is all too obvious to those who know and care. Until reparation is made for the systematic and deliberate damage done to the Gaelic language over many years successive Governments must continue to bear the guilt. This ancient language lies at the heart of our traditions, culture and heritage, and its beauty in song, poetry and story is unsurpassed. We cannot afford to lose it.
We are told that the whole tenor of the Government's philosophy is the freedom to choose and to make our own decisions. We are told that we must stand on our own feet. In view of those tenets, I sincerely hope that the Government will respond to the wishes of the Scottish

people by setting up a legislative body in Edinburgh with fair elections by proportional representation and the abolition of one tier of local government.
We in the Liberal party are convinced that institutional change would bring that freedom and, at the same time, improve the quality of decision-making. Scotland has lived too long at less than its full potential. There is more to life for its people than material progress; there is the right to choose, and to ignore that right is to court disaster. Scotland must recover her sense of destiny, her pride and self confidence and take her rightful place as a partner in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Michael Jopling: It is with considerable pleasure that I follow the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who has just got her maiden speech off her chest. It is a great trial for all who join the House for the first time. The hon. Lady's speech was of great interest, especially to me, since I am interested in rural affairs. She made her speech with considerable charm and with none of the nerves which many people have on these occasions, and we look forward to hearing from her again. Her comments about her predecessor, John MacKay, will have given Conservative Members most pleasure. We miss him very much. I miss him especially because we battled together for many hours, day and night, in the Council of Ministers in Brussels. He was a doughty fighter for fishermen and especially for farmers in Scotland.
We discuss this motion, in different guises, many times during the year and I speak today for the first time in 16 years without having some Front Bench responsibility. To get myself back into the mood for doing this, I looked up the last two or three speeches I made 16 years ago. In June 1971, in almost my last speech as a Back-Bench Member, I was accused by Mr. Reggie Paget of being involved in a Whip's filibuster. I was somewhat perturbed to see that I replied:
On principle, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I never speak to Whips."—[Official Report, 28 June 1971; Vol. 820, c. 172.]
At that time, Mr. Speaker, you were a Whip. You got your own back on me, because I was a member of the Conservative Whip's Office within a few weeks of making that remark. It has been somewhat difficult to get back into the swing of things.
I approve of the motion. I am especially pleased that the Leader of the House has been able to arrange an early rising of the House in July. This is an important matter, not least for the families of Members, especially Scottish Members. Scottish Members regularly used to complain that their children had been home from school for some time before the House went into recess. I hope that the Leader of the House will remember that sometimes Members' families pay a great price for our attendance here. I hope that it will always be part of my right hon. Friend's strategy to get the House up in good time every July. I also support the motion because my right hon. Friend is proposing a long recess during which the Government can produce a good deal of legislation before we return on 21 October. I hope that the Government will make the best use of the recess.
I reject the idea that is put forward every year of having a shorter summer recess and extending the recesses at Christmas, Easter and Whitsun. I note an amendment on the Order Paper and an early-day motion to that effect. I


have a simple reason for rejecting the idea. Governments being who they are the moment we did that, they would increasingly appropriate the extra recesses at Christmas, Easter and Whitsun to discuss so-called essential legislation. Some of us know what Governments do. They begin by saying that it is only for one year, and before we know where we are, it becomes a regular part of the parliamentary scene. There have always been suggestions that the House should return some time in September. That would be messy, and the House should not sit during the season of party conferences. It is best to have a long recess just as the Leader of the House has proposed.
My right hon. Friend must ensure that the recess is properly used. He must bully Departments to have ready a large number of Bills to lay before the House as soon as it returns on 21 October. After those Bills have been before the House for the appropriate two weekends, I hope that the first two weeks of November will be full of Second Reading debates so that we may get on with the parliamentary process. I am sorry to see only one Bill awaiting Second Reading on the remaining orders at present. I had hoped that more Bills would be awaiting their Second Reading so that we could debate them when we returned in October. It is crucial to get the programme off to a good start.
The Leader of the House may have heard me say before that organising the parliamentary legislative year is a bit like growing a good crop of wheat. One starts at much the same time of the year. It is important to prepare the ground—to have the Bills ready—so that once the crop is sown it continues to grow and prosper without any check. I hope that he will ensure that that happens, but I assure him that Departments will give him every excuse as to why Bills are not ready for laying before the House the first week after the recess. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be ruthless with them in ensuring that the Bills are ready. If not, during the corresponding debate on the motion for the summer Adjournment in 1988, my right hon. Friend will be faced by complaining Members whose children are already busy on the beaches with their buckets and spades, asking their mothers why their fathers have had to go back to London. It is important that the House should rise early, in July, each year, and I hope that my right hon. friend will continue his good work.
We all know that this will be a busy Session. The Gracious Speech demonstrated that clearly. The first Session of a Parliament is always the busiest, and rightly so. But I hope that the Leader of the House will be ruthless with his colleagues in ensuring less legislation in future Sessions. I remind my right hon. Friend that before we were elected to Government in 1979 we all said a great deal about the need to stem the torrent of legislation which had poured out of the House over the years. I fear that we have not done as much as we should to stem that torrent. I hope that my right hon. Friend will insist on a good deal less legislation during the Government's 10th to 13th years.
Some Departments in Whitehall seem to think that their Ministers' success depends on how much primary legislation they can introduce. When new Ministers go to Departments, I have visions of the permanent secretaries standing at the top of the steps rubbing their hands together and saying, "Welcome, Minister. We have a lot of interesting legislation for you this year." I hope that my right hon. Friend will curb this dangerous trend, of which I disapprove. I have always regarded the Department of the Environment as a special culprit here. It has been

notoriously bad at taking on more legislation than it can manage and then having to chop and change it at the expense of huge amounts of parliamentary time.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows all this and that he will take steps to ensure that we have a properly managed programme. He made great efforts to do that while he was Chief Whip. I hope that he will be vigilant in keeping legislation to a minimum and in getting it produced accurately and early so that the House is not kept here for longer than necessary during the summer months.

Mr. Tony Benn: I rise to follow up the matters that were raised with Mr. Speaker after Question Time about the material now in the public domain written by Mr. Peter Wright in his book "Spycatcher". It is being published in America today and extracts of it have been made available to the press in this country. I accept entirely that it would be wrong to comment upon the actions of those who may be held accountable in the courts for what they have done, but that is not the issue. The question that the House should consider without party prejudices of any kind is that a senior official of M15, Mr. Peter Wright, who served in that capacity over many years, has written a book in which he has said that during the 1970s half of M15, who are public servants, were engaged in an action designed to undermine or overthrow the elected Government under the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson.
I was a member of that Government and many of the events referred to in Mr. Peter Wright's book strike a responsive chord in my memory because I know what was being said then. I knew it was not true, I wondered the source from which it came, but I decided simply to proceed. and to note the events against the possibility that some explanation might be forthcoming later.
Mr. Wright says in his book that a Mr. Jim Angleton, head of counter-espionage in the Central Intelligence Agency, came to the United Kingdom at that time with a report that the Prime Minister was a Soviet agent and that the CIA virtually instructed MI5 to take action against an elected Prime Minister. Those basic facts only have to be stated for it to be clear that officials, some of whom may still be in the Civil Service, were guilty of attempting a coup against an elected Government in this country.
I do not claim that anybody in the present Government had direct responsibility for what happened. However, the Attorney-General is accountable to the House, as was his predecessor, the present Lord Chancellors and the Prime Minister is responsible for the intelligence services. They have made no attempt to investigate the truth of those allegations by testing them in the courts. Instead, they have thrown the entire resources of the State into getting the allegations suppressed. The Cabinet Secretary was sent to Australia and was exposed to absurdity in the Australian courts for many reasons, one of which was that he confessed that he had been "economical with the truth"—that statement from the most senior civil servant in the country who is normally regarded as being apart form and separate from matters of political controversy.
To stay within the rules of sub judice I will not name the newspapers which attempted to bring out what happened. They were proceeded against by the then Attorney-General, the now Lord Chancellor, who, for all I know, may well be called upon to adjudicate on the


matters he initially promoted as Attorney, should those matters go on appeal to the House of Lords where he sits on the Woolsack with some responsibility for such matters.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who is a lawyer, shakes his head. Anyone who really believes that the Government and the courts are separate knows little about the proceedings of the House or indeed of the other place. A comparable case of covert action is now being investigated in the American Congress. Colonel Oliver North and Admiral Poindexter are arraigned before the American Congress for action that is comparable precisely with what Mr. Peter Wright and, allegedly, Jim Angleton of the CIA did in Britain. Far fom the American Congress suppressing the matter because it might be the subject of judicial action—for all I know, it might be—in accordance with the tradition of open government in America, for which I have the greatest possible admiration, it has brought the matter out and Colonel North is required to explain everything that he has done. He has been forced to admit that he lied, and under cover of Congressional protection he is now delivering to the American people an account of the stewardship of Admiral Poindexter, the President and himself. Not in this country

Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Benn: No, I would like to continue as I do not want to detain the House for very long.
It would be an outrage if the House were to adjourn and an allegation as serious as that made by Mr. Peter Wright about a coup against an elected Government were to pass unnoticed. I am a long-serving Member of the House and I have attended all its ritual functions. We always meet after an election in a mass of mutual congratulations.We elect the Speaker and Members on both sides of the House say how good a man he is. I join in that. We meet to say how we are the best Parliament in the world. The newly elected Speaker goes to the House of Lords and claims our ancient privileges, and everybody nods. When the Queen is to deliver her speech, not only do we lock the door to pretend that we keep the executive out, but we put the Outlawries Bill down to show that we are not obliged to consider the Crown's business first.
But if the Attorney-General decides that he wants to silence Parliament, he has a very simple way of doing it. He goes to the courts and tries to interfere with the freedom of the press, knowing that the Speaker is obliged by precedent to apply the sub judice rule to silence Parliament. There is as great a threat to Parliament today as there has ever been in its history. That threat is not by the occupant of the throne but by the Crown's Ministers who sit in the House. As I said in the Zircon case when I begged the House to refer that matter to the Committee of Privileges, unless we take the matter seriously this Parliament will be a laughing stock around the world, and rightly so. We bring schoolchildren here and tell them about the mother of Parliaments. We tell them how wonderful it is and how speeches are made fearlessly by hon. Members in the public interest. We tell them that matters of concern are aired in a way that other countries try to emulate. It is not true. The truth is that the House, on a matter as grave as any that has been before it during my time as a Member, which goes back nearly 37 years,

has absolutely failed to insist on holding the Government, the Law Officers and the Prime Minister accountable because it has denied itself the opportunity of discussing the matter.
This is not a party matter. If Government Members had any evidence that some foreign security service was trying now to overthrow the Prime Minister by subversion, was
bugging and burgling its way across London
—I quote Peter Wright—the party opposite would quite properly be up in arms. I would hope that my colleagues would, too. However, when it happens to be a Labour Government that was subverted, where are the advocates of law and order? Where are the Members on the Government Benches who say that a crime may have been committed and that they want the guilty to be pursued in the courts? There is not a voice. The conduct of the Attorney-General and his predecessor in the case has fallen well below the standards required of their office.
I have heard many debates on the summer Adjournment where people get up to just make a point or, as we have just heard, to raise a rather funny speech about the length of the holidays. However, this is a substantial matter. I apologise for referring to the excellent maiden speech by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) at the end rather than at the beginning of my speech. It was a formidable maiden speech. As the son and grandson of Liberal Members, both of whom sat for Scottish seats, perhaps I may be allowed to put a special feeling into my reference to the hon. Member and to say that she will be heard with great respect whenever she chooses to address the House.
Before I sit down I must repeat what I have said. If Parliament does not have a full debate before the summer recess upon an attempted coup against the democracy of this country, masterminded by MI5 officials who are paid to protect our freedom and who are accountable to the Prime Minister, it will fail in its constitutional task to protect those who elected us.

Mr. John Bowis: Tempting as it might be to follow the line taken by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I shall tread the traditional path of non-controversy and stick to non sub-judicial matters in my maiden speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on her maiden speech. I hope that I can equal it.
I begin by paying a warm and sincere tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Alfred Dubs. I believe that Alf Dubs was respected on both sides of the Chamber. He had a fine reputation as a Member of Parliament and he served his party well as a spokesman on home affairs and immigration matters. I believe that he did well by the people of Battersea. However, a Member of Parliament is judged not only by his work in the House but by his work in the constituency. From my experience of people in my constituency, I can say that a large number of individuals and organisations owe a great debt of gratitude to Alf Dubs for the work that he did for them. If when I come to leave the House I can say that I looked after my constituents as well as he looked after his, I shall have done well by them.
The best tribute that I can pay Alf Dubs is to say that political friends and foes alike refer to him as "a nice man". I certainly agree with that from the short knowledge I have had of him. Whenever our paths crossed during the


election campaign there was a courteous and civilised debate between us, which is just as it should be in party political circles. I believe that that is a fitting tribute to the man that I have replaced in the House.
It seems almost superfluous to refer to my constituency. As I look around, I find that almost every other hon. Member seems to live in the constituency. Unlike most hon. Members who escape their constituents when they go into the Division Lobbies, I have a nasty feeling that as I go into the Lobbies I shall be nobbled by hon. Members urging me to take some particular action on their behalf. Nevertheless, I shall take hon. Members on a brief Cook's tour of my constituency. There are rather a number of bridges in it. It starts at the Nine Elms approach to Vauxhall bridge, and includes Chelsea bridge, Albert bridge, Battersea bridge, Wandsworth bridge and ends up on the Putney bridge road. The constituency goes down through the two commons of Wandsworth and Clapham and ends up in Balham.
The Battersea that I represent is something of a merger. It used to he largely Douglas Jay's old seat of Battersea, North, with a hefty chunk of Battersea, South which used to be represented by Ernest Partridge. With all these Jays and Partridges around, I am tempted to give something of an ornithological history of the area. However, suffice it to say that in this case the Tory eagle has landed.
If one looks at history, as one must, to find my Conservative predecessors in the constituency, one finds that 1959 was the last occasion on which there was a Conservative Member for Battersea, South. One goes into the mists of pre-war history, to 1931, to find my Conservative predecessor in Battersea, North. That was Commander Arthur Marsden, who was hot foot from commanding HMS Ardent at the battle of Jutland. Therefore, one can see that I look back as well as around and ahead as I consider my constituency.
I can look back at another rare bird in this place, a Communist Member of Parliament. Saklatvala represented Battersea—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] Hon. Members seem to remember him.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I knew his daughter.

Mr. Bowis: I cannot speak for his daughter, but I can speak for him. He stood as a Communist, but I notice from the footnotes in all the history books that he was a Communist with Labour party support. Wild horses would not drag from me any references to modern parallels with Militant Tendency.
There are many parallels with the past in my constituency. One sees many references to Battersea as having a fair number of what are described as "Yuppies". I do not know whether that is a parliamentary term, but it is used frequently in relation to the area. The first Yuppie in the history books goes back to William the Conquerer. He, as an upwardly mobile gentleman, owned the manor of Battersea and took his chums there to enjoy the delights of what was described in the Domesday Book as the wealthiest manor in Surrey. Therefore, things have not changed that much in the area.
There is a tradition of agricultural interests in the area. That may surprise many hon. Members. However, there is the grain and malt that goes into the Ram brewery at the Wandsworth end of my constituency and fruit and vegetables go into Nine Elms market at the other end of

my constituency. We have a tradition that goes back to the days when the first asparagus was grown in Battersea park and lavender was indeed grown on Lavender Hill.
We have a tradition of colourful, if not turbulent, priests in the area. One was fined for catching salmon in the Thames and another was accused of consorting with witches. Today's incumbent has done nothing more scurrilous than serve a term as a Labour alderman.
In the south of my constituency we find the old route that is Stane Street, which the Romans built and down which the Roman tourists went on their way to Chichester. heading south along the line of Balham high road in a way that shows that Peter Sellers was not altogether inaccurate when he described Balham as the "Gateway to the South". Since then, Balham, Battersea and Wandsworth have grown and merged. From villages have grown towns and from towns have grown inner city areas. Areas have grown up and up, in many cases 20 storeys and more up. The borough of Wandsworth has inner city problems, as do all inner city areas. However, I believe that my area has found some of the answers to those problems.
The report "Faith in the City" referred to a number of relevant matters affecting my area. It referred to the unacceptably dull masses of municipalised housing estates, but it showed that the real need for areas such as mine was a thriving local economy. I think that that is what we have achieved. We have a partnership between central Government and local government, and a partnership between both forms of government and local firms and local people. It has put new heart into that area of inner London. The housing and environment have improved and the economic climate has taken off. It is a good place to live. It has the lowest unemployment levels in inner London and we have some 300 inquiries coming to the council every month from firms seeking to move into the borough.
I do not suggest for one moment that the successes and lessons of Wandsworth can be translated instantly to other parts of the country or to other inner city areas. However, I do suggest that the innovative and imaginative mix of public funding and private enterprise has done much to transform what was a depressing and depressed grey area of yesterday into a forward looking and confident community that looks to tomorrow's world with confidence and expectation.
I represent a wide variety of people. I represent those who have done well—many people in Battersea have done well. I congratulate those people, and it would be churlish not to wish them well in continuing their good fortune. We want more and more people to go on doing well. That is the climate of my constituency. However, I also represent those who have not done so well: those who are crying out to us for some form of help. My support came from a great range of people across the constituency, and I intend to represent the successful and those who need help.
There is a curious economic and fiscal truth, which is that low rates of income tax lead to a greater tax take. The same principle applies to company taxation. Tax cuts lead to greater wealth creation, greater wealth creation leads to more taxable wealth, and extra tax leads to more resources to be spent on areas of need; areas of need that are dear to the hearts of all hon. Members. The message in my constituency is that tax cuts and greater wealth creation lead to the spending that we want.
Having got the creation of additional wealth and an additional tax take, we must examine the balance that needs to be kept between spending and the maintenance of control over interest rates and inflation, without which spending would be much less effective than we would wish it to be. We must examine priority areas of spending, as well as increased spending.
My priorities for action relate to three areas of spending. They were referred to in one way or another in the Queen's Speech. One and a half of them relate to the ways in which Bills will come forward, and the other one and a half, I hope, will be considered by Ministers during the summer recess. They are summed up by the three messages by people in my constituency. They are, "I want my own home", "I want my child to get a decent education", "I want the worry taken out of my old age.". I bring those messages to the House. They say, "I am in a trap, and I want help to get out of it.".
Those are three traps, and they are not the fault of those who are entrapped. The child who is trapped in our education system in parts of inner London is locked into a system of neighbourhood mediocrity. The new education poverty trap holds faster children back and does not encourage slower children to catch up. I wish to encourage our education system to go forward to encourage children to stretch out as far as they can reach and to work and be rewarded to the height of their ambitions. The Government's actions go some way towards the achievement of that aim.
The moves to reform ILEA, to give schools greater budgetary autonomy and to give parents a greater say and influence in their children's schools are welcome. The move to make entry requirements and limitations on popular schools more flexible is also welcome. I hope that we can gradually unlock the education trap.
There are two housing traps. We in Wandsworth have one of the most successful boroughs, not only in enterprise, the environment and the economy, but in housing and home ownership. One third of our borough council tenants now own their own homes or, in most cases, their flats. The money that has been gained from that successful policy has been poured into improvements in houses, estates, sheltered accommodation and the great partnership between the local borough and local housing associations. But people still need housing help. Their housing ambitions are not met because of the absence of private rented accommodation. That is their trap.
Private accommodation once provided for young people in particular. Alas, in recent years, as hon. Members know well, for many reasons which we shall not examine today private accommodation has gone. I hope that it will return. The Government are seeking to encourage it in the institutional provision of private housing. I also hope that the Government will consider tax incentives for small private landlords, whom we also need back. That is half the housing trap.
The other half of the housing trap in my area relates to the particularly large number of people who live in housing association properties. Housing associations have done a great service for our country and for inner London. Nowadays, they are largely funded by central and local government. They take referrals largely from the local council of people who wish to move into housing association properties. Once people move into such

properties, they suddenly find that, through no fault of their own, they lose their right to buy. They want the right—council tenants also want it—to buy the homes which they have done much to improve and for which they have great affection. I should like to see them being given back that right. It is not enough to give them transferable discounts; they should have the right to buy the homes in which they live.
Finally, I come to the subject of pensions. Most pensioners are now much better off than they were, and pensioners are the first to say so. All pensioners have benefited from the Government's success in containing and reducing inflation. In the past, the ravaging disease of inflation affected pensioners' incomes and savings. No friend of pensioners today would advocate policies that would risk putting the inflation rate back to 10, 20, or 30 per cent. and thereby putting pensioners at risk again, but a certain group of pensioners need our support. They have given great service to the country, but the country has not rewarded that service by ensuring them comfort in their old age. That group is just above the supplementary benefit line. They have some small savings and a small pension and do not qualify for the benefits that would be available if they had less. They have retired too soon to benefit from new second pensions. They hesitate to turn up the gas in winter. They say, "I cannot afford to put an extra lock on my back door. They are in a real hardship trap, and we should support them.
Housing, education and welfare are my three priorities for action. There are three problems, three traps, and three locks. I hope that during my time in this Parliament I shall play my part in helping the Government to find three keys to unlock these three traps.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: I pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Hugh Brown. He was a well-respected hon. Member. He worked very hard for the constituents of Provan. I respect him as a person and as a Member of Parliament. For a time, he served with the Scottish Office. He was a dedicated, able man. I have no doubt that many Opposition Members respect him as much as I do. Dod's Parliamentary Companion gives us a potted history of his career, and we know that he was noted for being a tough-talking Scot. His wife, Mary, also came from a great political family in Glasgow. She paid much attention to his constituents. I wish both Hugh and Mary happiness in his retirement.
This morning I consulted a dictionary for the meaning of the word "controversy". It means to debate or to be open to question. I have no doubt that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree that the Government are open to question. I do not have a great deal in common with Conservative Members. I abhor the rotten capitalist system that has brought misery to many families in my constituency. I am not like the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). My constituency has the worst unemployment rate in Britain. In some areas, it is as high as 39 per cent.
The level of poverty in my constituency is deplorable. It is not so long ago that my constituents queued for the giros that did not arrive. They also queued at soup kitchens. Surely the Government must recognise the poverty that they have created by allowing banks to repossess houses and to raise their interest charges when


coffers were empty. That is the type of Government and the type of capitalism that Conservative Members have supported for the past nine years.
One of the most horrifying pieces of legislation discussed in the Chamber was discussed in panic because, when revaluations caused rates to treble in Strathclyde and Glasgow, the Prime Minister panicked herself into setting up a study to establish a rating system based on the ability to pay. The Prime Minister introduced what she called the "community charge". It is a poll tax. I have an electorate of 43,000, but if that legislation is implemented in Scotland my electorate will be down to 10,000 because nobody will register. The legislation is a breach of civil liberties, because, if people do not register, they will not be allowed to vote. The legislation must not he implemented.
The first person to introduce a rate relief for the poor was Pope Gregory. It was based on a system of help for the poor, but we are now considering a system based on the ability to pay. The community charge transfers the burden from the rich to the poor. A couple living in a 30-bedroom mansion, paying £2,000 in rates, would be asked to pay £500 under the new system. The burden would be transferred to a family living in a slum. That family of five earners may have a joint income of £25,000 a year, but they will be asked to pay something like £1,500 under the community charge. We abhor such a policy, and that is why the great lady has been scored off 90 per cent. of Christmas card lists this year.
Democracy has been eroded. The Labour party was the first to set up an inquiry into the local government system under the Layfield committee. That committee reported in 1976 and stated clearly that it would be extremely costly and take 10 years to introduce a new rating system. I believe that we should look for a system with a buoyancy yield, and the only system that provides that is a local income tax system. Based on that system Lawrie McMenemy, earning £4,000 a week, would pay a flat rate of just 5 per cent. on that £4,000. Wee Mrs. Dobbs on £30 a week would pay 5 per cent. on that £30. The local income tax system would leave room for exemptions and fluctuations in income and inflation would also be taken into account.
There are 18 million people living on or below the poverty line in this country. Press reports of previous weeks revealed that some of those people are only a giro cheque away from starvation. Oxfam has been turned into the national tailor for many poor families because they cannot afford to buy clothes on the menial supplementary benefit provided by the Government. The Government had an opportunity to do something about that problem when they introduced the Social Security Act 1986. However, that Act was designed not to help the poor, but to take from them so that the Government could save £1 billion.
Over the past eight years, it has been clear that the Government can give and find money, but they find it for the wrong people. They found £8 billion for the highest taxpayers in the country. That payment is the equivalent of £219 per week or an income of over £11,000 a year. The Government gave relief to those who did not need it. What did they do for the lower paid—those earning less than £5,000 a year? They gave them £1·63 per week, the equivalent of £89 a year. For that reason we will fight to dismantle the rotten, corrupt capitalist system that has been created in the past eight years.
Are we safe in the Government's hands? I do not believe that we are. The Government have decided to spend billions on a new weapon, Trident, that can destroy 26 cities and kill millions of people in one blast. However, we should consider the protection that is afforded to the Members and staff of this House. Last week, one member of staff was bleeding profusely and ran down to the medical office. The lady saw a 6 in. by 6 in. box wrapped in brown vinegar paper and bound with tape. Although she was standing there bleeding, the messenger said, "We cannot open the box." However, she said that she must and, after four minutes of unwrapping the tape, she opened it to discover there were six pieces of linen, six elastoplasts and one piece of cotton wool in that box. She was then told by the Serjeant at Arms that the box should never have been opened because the contents of the box were there to protect people if there was a nuclear attack. Such is the safety provided by the Government for the staff and Members of the House.
Three dear old ladies, who have spent 100 hours in the Court of Sessions, have asked me to raise their pet subject, the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985. I do not know how anyone could have voted for that Act, especially when one considers the paragraph that specified that fluoride would be applied to 1 mg per litre where practicable. I would like a definition of "practicable". No one has ever mentioned whether fluoride can be considered as a medicinal product. The Medicines Act 1968 states that a medicinal product is a substance that is used to clear up diseases. The disease with which fluoridation is concerned is dental caries, a disease of the mouth.
The 1968 Act also specifies what is meant by the adminstering of a medicine. If one takes one substance, mixes it with another, and administers that to an animal or a human being, that substance is a medicinal product. The Government should also consider that it cost £1·5 million to discover that they were ultra vires with regard to the Water (Scotland) Act 1946. Throughout Britain, we employ local authority engineers to treat the water to make it wholesome. We do not employ those engineers to treat the people who drink the water. That is an important fact. We do not want the civil liberties of individuals to be breached. I hope that my dear old ladies will be happy that I raised that matter on their behalf.
I have been asked by disabled people to draw attention to all the Acts that have been passed by Parliament over many years, especially the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Local authorities, including Strathcylde region, have not fully implemented the required survey. About one third of all chronically sick and disabled people are still suffering because central Government will not give local authorities the money to implement those provisions.
Another piece of important legislation recently passed was the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which, in relation to funding from central Government, is another farce. The Government have told local authorities not to implement it to keep costs down. They have offered little financial help and the finance that has been made available does not meet the needs in Britain, in Scotland or in Strathclyde.
Finally, high unemployment is a waste of talent, energy and creative productivity. Thousands of Glaswegians are unemployed while our oil, shores and land fall into the hands of the greedy merchants of the temple. The £58 billion of North sea oil revenue has been thrown down the drain in payments to keep people unemployed. We look


for better for our unemployed. We look for jobs and apprenticeships, not for the slave and cheap labour of the YTS and MSC schemes. We look for investment. We want the Government to bring back the £109 billion that has been invested abroad, using cheap labour to get high interest rates. The Government can bring back that money.
We do not have to go far to know what an unjust world this is. Down at the Embankment, only a few yards from here, one can see people lying in cardboard boxes in the tunnels. The Government are uncaring and have no compassion. It is time that they got themselves together and started to implement policies to help the poor and unemployed. The quicker the Government do that, the better for the poor.

Sir Dudley Smith: This afternoon I feel a little like a man who has been doing the football pools without success for many years, but whose number suddenly comes up. In the 25 years that I have been a Member of the House I have never followed a maiden speaker. Today, however, I find myself following two, and that is quite something.
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray). In the modern idiom, he was controversial, although there is nothing bad about that, because nowadays most maiden speeches are controversial. However, from the hon. Gentleman's delivery it is obvious that he is a robust speaker. I disagree with practically everything that he said, but I was interested to hear his comments about the "rotten, corrupt capitalist system". I am sure that he will be extraordinarily entertaining on the rotten and corrupt Socialist system although now is not the time to go into that, I should like to hear him speak on that topic.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about fluoridation, as I am sure does my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who is present. With my hon. and learned Friend, I have long been a campaigner in the House to try to stop fluoridation. We have not been very successful, but we have voted against it consistently. I hope that we can welcome the hon. Member for Provan to the ranks of those who, irrespective of party, oppose this indoctrination of water, which we believe to be harmful.
The hon. Gentleman paid a gracious tribute to his predecessor, Hugh Brown, whom many of us knew as a man of charm and a hard worker. He was well liked by hon. Members of all parties. If the hon. Gentleman does as well for his constituents as Hugh Brown did, he will do very well indeed.
As I am the first speaker after two maiden speakers, I should like to congratulate also my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), whom all Conservative Members are delighted to see with us. His election was something of a surprise, as Battersea was one of the seats that we were not quite sure of winning. I enjoyed his confident tour de force of that area, which many of us know because of its close proximity to Westminster. My hon. Friend's speech reflected the success of that area, of many areas in the country and of our party. He is here because people are doing well and showing energy and enterprise. He is a modern and young product of that enterprise, and long may he be so. I

appreciate that there are problems in Scotland, and elsewhere. They will be cured, and the thrust of this nation is forward, as we saw in the election.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea had the good sense to pay a tribute to his predecessor, Alf Dubs. He was a hard worker and an industrious member of the Opposition Front Bench and he will certainly be missed by Opposition Members. Perhaps one of these days he will be back, but not, I hope, representing my hon. Friend's seat.
All hon. Members congratulate those maiden speakers, and indeed all other maiden speakers because we know what a trial it is. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, the hon. Member for Provan and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) made their maiden speeches with commendable confidence and we look forward to hearing from them in the future.
In this general debate on the Adjournment I should like to say a few things about one aspect of democracy. There are many who take democracy in our country for granted. We are rightly jealous of our democracy and fight strongly against those who try to undermine and subvert it. Sensibly, we have strict rules about our democratic electoral process which need to be observed faithfully and properly. Personation, for example, is a serious and punishable offence. That ballot is secret and polling stations are run with scrupulous fairness and independence. Casting one's vote at a polling station is relatively straightforward. However, there is one area in which our electoral and democratic rules are beginning to fray a little at the edges at the moment. It is time to stop the rot, and to do so now.
The main thrust of my argument relates to postal voting and its management. At the recent election, postal voting was something of a shambles despite the previous Government's praiseworthy efforts to extend it to include holidaymakers for the first time. The flaws and the bumbling incompetence of the Home Office officials who designed the new obstacle course of postal voting have already been exposed efficiently by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) in his recent devastating Adjournment debate.
To obtain a postal or proxy vote, one practically needed a law degree and experience in picking one's way through tricky legal documents. It is laughable to think what must have happened when the postal vote forms arrived at many council residential homes, or indeed at any residential home. I had a letter from a constituent this morning who, on the eve of polling day, called on his mother, only to discover that she had done nothing about the postal vote form. Those forms had been handed out, but no one had given any help or instructions as to what the old people should do to exercise their franchise.
Indeed, even people outside such homes and with plenty of intelligence who managed to survive one or two hurdles would always encounter a further one that would bring them down in their attempt to obtain a postal vote. In some respects, that endeavour almost took on the aspect of a competition for prizes, in which the organisers were trying to trip up the contestants. At the end of the postal vote form, one almost expected to see, "In case there is a tie, please describe in less than 10 words why you believe in democracy," or something like that.
I have discovered that people in quite important walks of life foundered along the way and were unable to get their postal votes accepted. As a result, thousands of votes


were lost to all parties. Many postal votes were never returned, many others were returned but were ineffectual, and others were spoilt.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the whole postal voting system must be put right and a simple system initiated in time for the next general election. That is in the interests of all political parties and of our democratic process. We must safeguard the rights of as high a percentage as possible of those entitled to vote who come into these special categories; for example, the disabled, those who are going on holiday, those who are away from home because they have moved house and those who are away on business or for work purposes. I refuse to believe that in this advanced, electronic, computerised age we should retain a creaky, almost Victorian system of hit or miss, depending on whether one happens to fill in the form correctly.
In addition to the shambles of officialdom, I am worried about the attitude of the Post Office and the way it carries out its tasks. Every four to five years, when a general election comes round, the Government must instruct the Post Office at the highest level that it must provide extra supervision and pay extra attention to the handling of all communications in relation to that election. These are not merely ordinary items of mail which are processed daily. They are items which must be handled with care and expedition. I estimate that I lost well over 1,000 votes because of those who were unable to register on time, those who applied too late and those who were cheated of their franchise by officialdom. I am sure that that experience was shared by many other hon. Members. It goes without saying that in a marginal seat this could be utterly crucial to the outcome of the election.
In future, we cannot allow the Home Office to erect hurdles against us which are insurmountable by many people. We cannot leave to chance or a supposition of good will or efficiency that the Post Office will deliver poll cards, election literature and, most important, the growing number of postal votes that we shall have in years to come. Postal votes must reach their destination as quickly as possible and be transmitted back again.
In my constituency, postal votes were issued on the appropriate day. Some people were at home, literally sitting on their cases, waiting to go on holiday, knowing that their postal vote was to arrive the next morning, only to discover that there was a 24-hour delay because a sackful of postal votes had been put on one side and had not been dealt with by the Post Office. I would have thought that that was an electoral offence.
The electoral returning officer in my area made strong protests and I received an apology from the district head postmaster of the area that I represent. Two or three consitituents have alleged that their postal votes were issued by the returning officer, but never reached them. As a consequence, those people were disfranchised. One constituent wrote to me and said that he was now old and disabled and that he had voted in every general election since 1935. He regarded it as his democratic right and duty. This was the first time that he lost the opportunity to vote, because the Post Office did not deliver his postal vote.
These are serious matters, and in some cases they can influence the outcome of the contest. Whether or not they do, it is the right of every person of sound mind above the qualifying age to cast his or her vote at an election. It is extremely important that the Home Office takes these matters on board and acts positively to reform the system

and for the Government of the day to say at election times to the Post Office, "It is your duty to provide the utmost supervision to ensure that all election communications are handled efficiently, dispatched on time and returned to the returning officer ready for counting when the election takes place." If we do that, we shall make a small but significant advance.

Mr. John Fraser: I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) about filling in postal vote application forms. I found it almost as difficult as booking tickets for the National Theatre. The sooner we revise those forms, the better.
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) and the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on their maiden speeches. My hon. Friend succeeds an hon. Member whose reputation for hard work, sincerity and robust speech was well recognised in the House. Clearly, my hon. Friend comes to the House with intense feelings about poverty, inequality and unemployment, and I hope that we shall often hear from him in future. He endorsed the people of Scotland's strong condemnation of Government policies.
I must be careful about congratulating non-Labour Members, because when it fell to me to congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) shortly before the general election my remarks found their way into a pre-election leaflet that was circulated in the Greenwich constituency and I had to account to Ms. Deidre Wood for what I had said in the House.
When I grew up in Battersea, it was pronounced "Ba'ersea" and Arding and Hobbs was pronounced "Harding and 'obbs". The hon. Gentleman finds himself in the House because the people of Battersea do not suffer unemployment to the same degree as the people of Provan. He spoke with fluency and sincerity and recognised the problems, two of which, housing and education, are dear to my heart. He may live to regret the Government's proposals for them, because he will find that the policy of the London borough of Wandsworth, which the Government intend to emulate, is a policy of rehabilitating buildings rather than the lives, hopes and ambitions of people.
It is no solution to the problems of inner-city London and of high council flats simply to remove the people facing the problems and to replace them with others on a high income who want an address close to the City of London. The same is true of schools. The hon. Gentleman may well find that if the better organised, articulate parents have a chance to take their schools out of the state system, the sink schools, which have a larger proportion of deprived children and face the inequities of the inner city, will not be improved, but their problems will be intensified.
I cannot conclude my opening remarks without mentioning the loss of my friend Alf Dubs, a man with a king-sized conscience for those who suffer any sort of oppression. He will be sorely missed and I hope that he will soon be returned to the House. It is no exaggeration to say that there were people in Battersea with tears in their eyes the day after the election, because they owed so much to his sincerity and campaigning.
Alf took a great interest in immigration and I believe that the House should not adjourn for the summer recess


until there has been a ministerial statement about the conditions of a constituent of mine, Donald Michael Brown, who is liable to arrest and removal from the United Kingdom without any right of appeal, without any trial and without any statutory or judicial way of dealing with the problem. His wife, Katherine Brown, was born in the United Kingdom and her rights are also affected.
The history of the matter is very simple. Mrs. Brown was born here, but went on holiday to Jamaica and married Donald Michael Brown there. He applied to the United Kingdom high commission in Kingston for entry to the United Kingdom as a husband. However, there is an immigration rule that is an intellectual assault. It states that a person cannot come to this country if the primary purpose of the marriage is to gain entry to Britain. According to the immigration rules, the primary purpose of a marriage can be absolutely genuine, namely, that the couple have fallen in love and want a permanent relationship but the couple may be caught because at the same time the primary purpose of the marriage might be to come to the United Kingdom. How can there be two primary purposes for a marriage? That is an intellectual assault.
The rule effectively states that if an overseas male marries and wants to come to Britain, he cannot do so. However, if he marries and proves to the Home Office that he does not want to come here, he can come here. That is the rule in a nutshell. That is the rule that caught my constituent.
My constituent married in Jamaica in March 1986. It might help matters if I give the Home Office reference number. There is a system that ensures that we can get replies to these matters in Adjournment debates. The matter is now being dealt with by the Minister of State, and the Home Office reference number is B439046. The temporary admission number is TN/RLE/2375/86. I hope that that will make it easier for the Leader of the House.
Mr. Brown was refused permission to come here in May 1986. Mrs. Brown has a problem. Her mother has heart disease. My constituent has a council flat of her own and she is self-supporting. However, her mother suffers from a severe heart condition. Therefore, Mrs. Brown had to return to the United Kingdom some time in May or June 1986. Her husband came here on a visit in December 1986. It is true that he did not tell the Home Office that he was coming here to see his wife. I expect that in dictatorships all over the world when, someone wants to be near a relative or to get into a country to be united with his family, that person would tell lies about the reasons for wanting to join a husband or wife. I am sure that that happened in Germany before the war, and I am sure that it continues to happen. I do not hold it against my constituent that he did not tell the entire truth when he tried to get into Britain to be with his wife. He got into Britain by gaining temporary admission, and that is why he is liable to arrest and removal without a trial or appeal.
Mr. Brown's wife is now expecting a baby to be born in October. All pleas for Mr. Brown to be allowed to stay with his wife have been turned down. The wife, who has rights in these matters, faces a great dilemma. In parentheses, if my female constituent had been a man, because she was established in the United Kingdom on 1 January 1973—if the sexes were reversed—she would have an absolute right to be joined with her spouse.

However, because of the way in which the rules are drafted, she does not have an absolute right for her husband to join her because she is a woman. She faces a cruel dilemma. What is she to do?
If the husband is removed to Jamaica, she must make a choice. Should she go to Jamaica and give up her home here? She has adequate accommodation. Should she give up her home in Britain and abandon her mother, who is suffering from heart disease, who is in and out of hospital and who lives only a few doors away because the local authority has shown good sense by housing them closely together? Should she abandon her home and her mother on the one hand, or her husband on the other? Should she go to Jamaica with her child, where the child may have fewer prospects than in the United Kingdom? What is she to do?
When we consider the question of primary purpose, we realise that the immigration rule is nonsense. The rule is sexist, because it distinguishes between males and females. It creates a cruel dilemma of choice for a pregnant wife in a genuine marriage with genuine conflicting family responsibilities. That rule should be changed.
There is a form of unofficial prerogative of mercy, although that is not a royal prerogative of mercy. At all times, the Home Secretary or the Minister of State can say that the rules are working in a cruel, harsh and unconscionable way and that he will put to one side the harsh operation of that rule. I ask the Home Secretary, through the Leader of the House, to consider that this is one of those cases where the prerogative of mercy should be used and my constituent Mr. Brown should be allowed to remain with his pregnant wife, who is expecting the birth of her baby in a few months' time.
I have another reason why I believe that the House should not adjourn just yet, and this has nothing to do with immigration. It was reported in the papers today that the Home Secretary is about to release 5,000 criminals from prison back into society. Crime is one of the worst problems in my constituency. It is not all that easy to get into prison in London, because the courts are, on the whole, very reluctant to send people to prison. Now, however, 5,000 non-violent offenders are to be released. I accept that they are non-violent and that they are burglars, pickpockets, car thieves and people who have been convicted of graffiti, criminal damage and other offences. The cases of those people have been considered in detail in the courts and they are about to be released by the Home Secretary back into society before they have served out their sentences.
As a recompense for the Government's inability to deal with matters of law and order properly, I hope that anyone who is burgled or loses his car as a result of the reconviction of any one of these released people during the time when they would otherwise have been in prison will take advantage of an extension to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. There must be some recompense for the incompetence that the Government are visiting upon the victims, who may include my constituents. It is an extraordinary comment on the so-called party of law and order that the Government are emptying the gaols of some 5,000 people to make room—as this is not an amnesty—for another 5,000.
My main plea is for mercy for my two constituents who face a grievous family dilemma. I hope that at the end of the debate the Leader of the House will not redeem but will start to make his reputation by bringing mercy to this case.

Mr. Graham Riddick: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I am happy to follow the tradition of the House by paying tribute to my predecessor, Richard Wainwright. He was nothing if not persistent. He fought and lost three elections in Colne Valley before gaining the seat for the Liberal party in 1966. When he lost the seat in the 1970 general election, that, I believe, was the only seat to be gained by the Labour party that year. However, he regained the seat for the Liberals in 1974 and held it until his retirement at the general election. Richard Wainwright was, I believe, a respected Member of the House and a good constituency Member who was always on hand to help constituents with their problems, however small. He was ever present in the constituency and he was very approachable. It is my intention to follow his example in that respect.
Colne Valley has a rich and interesting political history. In 1923, it provided the country's first ever Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer in Philip Snowden. Another Labour man, Victor Grayson, who was Member of Parliament for Colne Valley in the first decade of this century, disappeared in somewhat mysterious circumstances. That is an example that I do not intend to follow. I hope that I shall not be too controversial if I state that a former Prime Minister, Lord Wilson, was born in Milnsbridge in my constituency.
In this interesting political jigsaw puzzle that is the Colne Valley there has been one vital piece missing—in its 102-year history Colne Valley had never had a Conservative Member of Parliament. That was the case until four and a half weeks ago, and I am delighted to be the piece that completes the jigsaw. Indeed, it is worth pondering why, if there is such an appalling north-south divide—as Opposition Members contend—the good people of Colne Valley should see fit to elect their first ever Conservative Member of Parliament after so long.
I hope that I shall be allowed to indulge just a little in eulogising my beautiful constituency. Although they might not realise it, part of my constituency will be well known to many people both inside and outside the House, for as they enjoy the antics of Compo, Clegg and Foggy in the TV series "Last of the Summer Wine", they also enjoy the attractive scenery of Holmfirth and the surrounding Holme valley in my constituency where that series is filmed.
I do not imagine that many constituencies can boast that no fewer than five packs of hounds reside in their boundaries, yet that is the case in Colne Valley, with the Holme Valley beagles, the Colne Valley beagles, the Pennine hunt, the Rockwood hunt and the Colne Valley mink hounds. Indeed, I am delighted to pay tribute to the field sports followers in my constituency who gave me enormous support during the election because they saw that the Conservative party was the only party that posed no threat whatever to their traditional pastime.
Colne Valley takes in some of the suburbs of Huddersfield, such as Lindley and Crosland moor, which will tell those people who sometimes mistakenly associate Colne Valley with Nelson and Colne in Lancashire that Colne Valley is in the very heart—some would say it is the very heart—of west Yorkshire.
With its textiles tradition, Colne Valley was one of the major engine rooms of the industrial revolution. Sadly, the last 25 years have seen the textiles industry decline, and the

industrial Colne Valley has declined with it. Happily, however, I can report that this area, along with many other parts of Yorkshire, is being revitalised by the entrepreneurial efforts of many local people. Recent reports from the regional CBI and the local Kirklees chamber of commerce have demonstrated growing confidence among the business community.
Unemployment in my constituency has fallen by nearly 900 over the last year. These improvements have been brought about by the Government's economic policies that have led to low inflation, improved productivity, more responsible trade unionism and greater support for small businesses.
There is one major obstacle that stands in the way of increased economic progress in my area and, indeed, in many other parts of the country. I refer to the problems caused to industry by local councils and the planners. As firms increase their business, in many cases they need to expand their existing premises or to find additional premises. As a result, they come into contact with the local council, and only too often find that their problems have only just begun. There are so many hurdles to overcome—from the highways department to the water authority, from the planners to the tree planters. If one's building is listed, one's problems are compounded. After all that, one's proposal must then win the approval of the elected councillors.
A number of local business men have come to me with problems put in their way by the local Kirklees council. Let me give an example. John Crowther plc of Milnsbridge has turned itself round from being a loss-maker to what is now a thriving business, employing 400 people and exporting nearly 50 per cent. of its output. Crowthers wants to pull down an empty, derelict mill called Union Mills and in its place build some single-storey units that will create jobs for local people. That mill is an eyesore and is now dangerous because of its dilapidated condition. It is a mess. If one wants confirmation of that one only has to ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary who visited the mill with me last Friday. Yet the council has just refused to recommend demolition. There is no justification for the loss of jobs that would otherwise have been created.
On Friday I also visited a small printing firm, L W Graphics in Longwood. That firm wanted to expand, found the ideal premises 12 months ago, put forward a planning application and was turned down—not on environmental or traffic grounds but because the application went against the local plan which says that change of use of existing buildings for office purposes can only be permitted if inside the town centre. That was despite the fact that the premises had been used for commerical purposes for more than 20 years. What a crying shame that those few extra jobs were never created because of an unnecessary and petty bureaucratic restriction. I could quote many similar stories of how the rules and regulations of Kirklees council have hindered and, indeed, blocked the development and progress of industry in my constituency.
As this is my maiden speech, I would not dream of suggesting anything controversial, such as that these obstacles are an indication of the innate hostility of certain Labour councillors to private enterprise. My experience is that business men are very good at saying what they can do, what can be done, why a new product can be made and sold and why new jobs can be created but that council


officials are very good at saying why something cannot be done. It is my belief that had today's planning controls existed 150 years ago, the industrial revolution would never have taken place.
The Government will have to look at planning controls again. In my view, some local councils are abusing them, and in so doing are hampering the Government's efforts to revitalise the private sector of industry. Of course, we must have controls. We must protect the green belt and the best examples of our architectural heritage. But the pendulum has swung too far, and thousands of jobs that could have been created have been lost for ever. I am sure that the examples I have quoted are merely the tip of the iceberg.
In Yorkshire and my constituency scores of budding entrepreneurs are ready and able to create the jobs of the future. They have the courage, enterprise and ideas to create that employment, but many of them do not have the patience, know-how or mind of a bureaucrat to overcome the frustrations of local government red tape. This Government must free them so that they can go out and create the extra wealth, prosperity and jobs that we all so desperately want to see.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I succeed in the House the former hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, who was before that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire, Mr. John Corrie. I am pleased to pay tribute to the diligence of Mr. Corrie's efforts over the years and to wish him well, whether in his retirement from politics or in his temporary absence from them.
My constituency is, in many ways, Scotland in microcosm. It is a mixture of the industrial and the rural. It is a constituency of great beauty; sadly, it is also a constituency of greatly wasted resources and talents. We live in a society which can apparently afford to dispense with the labour of 30 per cent. of my male constituents. with the unique deep-water facility at Hunterston and with the skills that have been built up over generations among the steelworkers of the Garnock valley.
I do not intend to take the House on a Cook's tour of my constituency. I shall quote only one statistic—from a document published last month during the election campaign. It is a careers report from the Ardrossan office of Strathclyde regional council's careers service, which states that of 174 school leavers, at Christmas fully 50 per cent. had failed to find any form of employment, and that 66 of those who had were on youth training schemes. Only 13 were in permanent employment. Of the other 50 per cent., the report states:
Their prospects are bleak. There are no jobs and no YTS vacancies for them.
It is into this real world that the Government intend to introduce the venal concept of conscription into jobs and schemes that do not exist in order to fulfil the myth that this is a land flowing with opportunity for all.
I intend to concentrate my remarks on the subject of the poll tax, otherwise known as the community charge. I feel that, after two years of debate on the matter, we in Scotland have something to teach the rest of the United Kingdom. Let me say to Conservative Members that, with respect, it is a lesson to which they might do well to listen. The Conservative party has learnt certain lessons in

Scotland about what happens once the realities of the poll tax, as opposed to the glittering package of alleged reform, become known to the public at large. In a more musical and romantic age, the events of 11 June might have been commemorated with a couple of pipe tunes: I suggest that "Lament for the Earl of Ancram" and John McKay's "Farewell to the Isles" might not have been inappropriate memorials to the debate on the community charge.
The community charge, or poll tax, was born out of blue-rinsed funk and panic among Scottish Conservatives who saw electoral disaster staring them in the face some two years ago. At the end of the day, they have the community charge on the statute book. However, they have also had the electoral disaster. The idea was conceived that if the 20-odd per cent. of Scottish people who vote Conservative were bribed with a shameless transfer of wealth from those who have least to those who have most, those people would dutifully salivate their way to the polling booths to thank the Conservative Government for their generosity, and would return Conservative Members to those constituencies. That idea was based on a misconception about the quality of the human spirit. It was based on the assumption that everyone—or at least everyone who had previously voted Conservative—voted on the basis of shameless, naked greed, without the slightest regard for the conditions of the society that surrounded them.
Fortunately, that calculation did not prove justified. In my constituency, and in many constituencies with a larger middle-class electorate which was supposedly to benefit from the scheme, electors in their droves rejected the poll tax precisely because they realised the unfairness of it—although it was to benefit marginally, or even by a substantial amount, their own wallets. I hope that I have enough faith in human nature in the south, in Wales and in other parts of the United Kingdom that the same calculations will be made by the electorate there in a few years' time. Those people may decide that they are going to benefit, but they will, I trust, also decide that they do not wish to benefit at the expense of old-age pensioners, the disabled and the poorest families in the land. For it is those people who will have to pay the tax, so that the wealthiest in the land may be subsidised and live in even greater comfort.
I can give this transfer of wealth a simple title: the Dulwich factor. I can think—hypothetically—of a wealthy retired couple in Dulwich who will benefit from the tax by, let us say, £2,000. As long as that is an abstraction which will not greatly affect others in Dulwich, it may not affect their behaviour, electoral or otherwise. But when the people of Dulwich realise that for that wealthy couple to benefit someone else must pay £2,000, they will become curious about the workings of the new tax. And when they realise that the people who will pay the £2,000 to subsidise the wealthy couple are not an abstraction but indeed themselves, they will become not only curious, but extremely angry. That "Dulwich factor" has already applied in Scotland, and I confidently predict that it will begin to apply in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The poll tax as it is proposed is a shameless transfer of wealth. It presupposes, or rather makes the hypothetical assumption, that everyone in our society can afford to pay equally, irrespective of means. To add insult to injury, even the weakest in the land—even the frailest pair of pensioners in my constituency who exist on supplementary


benefit pension and are at present exempted from paying rates—must initially find £2·60 a week from their pitiful pensions. Why? So that the wealthiest people in my constituency, and in society as a whole, may make massive savings.
I trust that, when people are confronted with the unfairness of the system, and then see it applied to the disabled and all the other categories of poor people in our society, they will reject the tax. When the Scottish poll tax measure was debated in the other place, the Government made a concession in respect of the mentally handicapped. They discovered a new category of person: the severely mentally handicapped. The Government decided, in all their generosity and majesty, to exempt the severely mentally handicapped, but not the merely mentally handicapped. In what kind of society do we live when the merely mentally handicapped—and all the physically handicapped—are to be taxed, so that the Dulwich factor may apply, and the wealthiest in the land are given a shameless handout?
My main objection is not on the financial argument or the venality argument, but on democratic grounds. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) wringing his hands over the state of the electoral register and the iniquities of the postal vote system—and quite right, too, although I would remind him, as a Member for an Ayrshire constituency, that if the electoral register had not been so disastrously bad in our part of the world, the Secretary of State for Defence would have been packing his Red Box and never returning to the House.
On the democratic argument, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) was absolutely right. The poll tax will take hundreds of thousands—indeed, millions—of people off the electoral register. If the head of a household of limited means is asked how many adults are living in the household, and the price of honesty is another £350, £500 or £750 per head, it will be in his interests to minimise the number of adults living in the household. We shall be back to the means test days, when inspectors came to the door and asked how many adults were living in the house. Suddenly, young people were away, staying with aunties, and people were hiding under beds and in cupboards. The price of being caught in one's own home will be the payment of hundreds of pounds more by people who cannot afford it. I do not know whether the advice of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to get on one's bike has been accepted in reality, but it will be accepted in theory because parents will say, "No, the kids are not here; they are in London"—or Manchester or Liverpool—"looking for work."
Another aspect of this tax is that it will destroy and disrupt family life. To admit that members of the family are living at home will lead to families paying more tax. That will be the result of this family-loving Conservative Government's policies. Many people will be taken off the electoral register. In this year of grace, 1987, is it respectable for a Conservative Government to seek to diminish the electoral register by removing vast numbers of people from it? Almost by definition, they are the least able to afford the tax and therefore, almost by definition, they are the least likely to vote for the Conservative party. Even according to the Conservative party's diluted concept of democracy, is it in the interests of that democracy to proceed with this tax?
I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take note of my forecast that by the end of the debates on this tax it will be abandoned because the suburban peasants who vote for the Conservative party will revolt. In Scotland, this tax was acceptable only to the 20-odd per cent. who previously voted for the Tory party. In England and Wales, the Conservative party has to avoid seriously offending 50 per cent. of the electorate if it is to make the tax a vote winner. On the basis of the Scottish experience, I confidently predict that the Government cannot do it, that they will not do it, that sooner or later they will have to retreat in bad order, and that the poll tax will disappear.
That brings me to a very important point: what is to happen to the poll tax in Scotland? In the first few days after the general election and in whatever may be the opposite of the first flush of success, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) clung to the idea that the poll tax must be implemented because it is to be legislated for in England and Wales. According to his curious logic, it would be nonsensical to implement the poll tax in one part of the United Kingdom but not to implement it in the remainder. I hope those words are firmly on record so that when the poll tax is abandoned in England and Wales it will also be abandoned in Scotland.
Under no circumstances must the poll tax be implemented in Scotland before it is implemented in the rest of the United Kingdom. If there is an undemocratic or anti-democratic attempt to impose the poll tax in Scotland before it is imposed in the rest of the United Kingdom, there will be abstention on a massive scale. There will be non-registration and non-payment on a massive scale. There will be a unity of purpose in Scotland that will flummox and bewilder those who sit on the Conservative Benches.
I have been very disappointed, though not surprised, by the reaction of Conservative Members to the outcome of the election in Scotland on 11 June. If they had had any grace, sense, or long-term vision, they would have reacted sensitively to their disastrous election result on 11 June. There has been no such generosity of spirit. Now, the ludicrous idea is that Scottish local government will he legislated for by a Committee that does not include a Scottish Office Minister. Those on the Government Benches sneer and say that because of the Union we, too, are lumbered with the status quo.
I have always supported the Union, but I do so only if it can be used as an instrument of progress. I do not want the world or this little island to be further divided up. But if the Conservative party believes that the union can survive when it is seen as the guarantor of mass unemployment and mass poverty in Scotland, if it thinks that the Union can be used as an instrument of interminable repression, it has another think coming to it. The Act of Union is written on parchment, not on tablets of stone. If the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) wants a place in the history books, let her reflect that the Falklands war will come to be regarded as a minor skirmish compared with the stigma that she will incur if, by her intransigence towards the people of Scotland, she succeeds in becoming the instrument of the destruction, after 280 years, of the Union.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: In 17 years, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have never before had the


opportunity to compliment an hon. Member on a maiden speech. I compliment the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on his maiden speech. When perusing "The Oxford English Dictionary" it might be difficult to reconcile the term "non-controversial" with what he said. None the less, it was a powerful speech and it came from the heart. I look forward to hearing him speak on many other occasions, when his comments can be subjected to critical examination.
I was glad that the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to my old friend, John Corrie, who was a first-class Member of the House. We all look forward to his speedy return. Similarly, I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on a very good maiden speech. I welcome the tribute that he paid to Richard Wainwright, who, with me, was a trustee of the parliamentary pension fund. He was a very distinguished and very hard working Member who looked after the interests of all hon. Members and tried to improve their pension arrangements.
I shall refer briefly to three issues. First, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), who referred to the muck-up by the Home Office of the postal voting arrangements. I welcome very much the attitude of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department who said that he would examine with a very flexible mind many of the points that had been made. I hope that changes will swiftly be made.
Secondly, the community charge legislation is to be welcomed and the sooner it is in force the better.
Thirdly, I wish to refer to the postal services in northwest London. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House should note that one of the purposes of this Adjournment motion debate is not to indulge in the rhetoric of major political issues, but to refer to matters that are of particular concern to our constituents. I have no knowledge of hordes of people who are anxious to read a work of fiction by a man named Peter Wright.
It is appalling that when he wrote to me the district postmaster in north-west London said that he understood and recognised that a change in the population had resulted in a substantially increased volume of mail, and that in order that particular addresses should not always have their first and only delivery, in many cases, at 12 noon, he was arranging to stagger deliveries, so that on one day their mail would be delivered at 8.30 am and on the next day it would arrive at noon. He is making everybody share the misery.
I do not criticise the postmen, who are doing a first-class job, but the management—and perhaps the union leadership—ought to realise that if there is an increase in the volume of mail their duty is to provide a service so that those who pay 18p and 13p for the delivery of their letters are provided with a proper service. The sooner that that is realised in north-west London, the better. I hope that my right hon. Friend wil convey those remarks to the chairman of the Post Office.
Last Friday my secretary posted two letters to me, not merely with the correct London postal district, but with the correct postal code. The small envelope, which was posted at 8·15 pm on Friday, arrived at my home in London NW2 on Saturday morning. That was the second letter that she had sent to me and it apologised for omitting

to tell me something in the first letter. The first letter did not arrive on Saturday, even though it was posted some three hours earlier, at 5·15 pm, again with the correct London postal district and postal code. Might it be that it was too large for the Post Office?
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to take up this matter, because the larger envelope, which is supplied to us, is being delivered late, yet the smaller envelope is getting through. The Post Office must be told that this is not satisfactory to the House of Commons. As a result of the larger letter arriving late, the letters that I could have signed and posted on Saturday to arrive at my constituents' homes on Monday will not arrive until tomorrow, because I could not post them until today.
The last matter that I want to ask my right hon. Friend is whether, before the House rises for the recess, he will tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that I am becoming tired of waiting for him to take over, under the provisions of the Housing Act 1980, the functions of the London borough of Camden in respect of its right-to-buy applications. There are hundreds of cases, not scores, where Camden is in breach of its statutory duty under that Act. It is denying hundreds of my constituents their right to cease paying rent and buy their own homes. I am aware that the power exists in the Act, because I was one of the Ministers who was responsible for that legislation.
The time has long passed when Camden should be allowed to thumb its nose at the Government and the law of the land. Behind the scenes its officers are saying, "Don't worry, we know how not to provide the information". The council is refusing to fill vacancies months after they have been created, and over and over again the ordinary people are suffering. The ordinary people showed what they felt on 11 June, because the overwhelming support that I received in my constituency came from council estates where people are sick and tired of the inactivity of Camden in dealing with this matter.
Those are the points that I wish to raise with my right hon. Friend. I hope that they will be dealt with before we rise for a well-deserved summer recess.

Mr. Tom Cox: I have listened to the five maiden speeches that have been made. One of the joys of being an hon. Member is that when one hears new Members making their maiden speeches one learns something about the charms and problems of the area that they represent. I am sure sure that all hon. Members will listen with great interest to their future speeches.
I should like to congratulate warmly my two hon. Friends on their maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) clearly outlined why we have this enormous north-south divide. He outlined the problems that his constituents face and why in the election on 11 June there was an overwhelming vote of support for the Labour party in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) made an outstanding speech. He spoke with great confidence and sincerity on an issue that will, without doubt, dominate the House in the coming months, The comments that he made and illustrations that he gave about the effects of the poll tax in Scotland will be of interest to every hon. Member who has not suffered from the effects of it but who has deep concerns as to its effect.
The issue that I should like to raise is the conditions under which men and women are kept in custody in police cells. I must tell the Leader of the House that at the present time 355 men and women are being kept in police custody because our prisons are overcrowded. If those men and women were receiving the same rights as unconvicted prisoners who are on remand in prison, there would be no need for me to speak in the debate. The conditions under which men and women are being kept are an utter disgrace in this day and age.
The rights of the Home Office to hold men and women in such conditions come from the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980. I stress the word "temporary" because when that measure was introduced in 1980 a firm assurance was given by the Home Secretary, now the noble Lord Whitelaw, that those provisions would be temporary. In 1982 only 42 people were kept in police cells, but in June 1987 there were 355.
The former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), made a statement that was issued by the Home Office on 2 July 1983. It said:
The Home Secretary, Mr. Leon Brittan, said today … he was determined to ensure that the use of police cells to hold prisoners is eliminated before the end of this year.
In a written answer the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home Department, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), said:
I am conscious that it is not always possible to ensure that prisoners held in police custody receive all the entitlements that would apply if they were in prison custody and I am aware that there have been particular difficulties in relation to visits and exercise."—[Official Report, 8 May 1985; Vol. 78, c. 407.]
How true that is today, yet that statement was made over two years ago.
Sadly, the position for men and women who are being held in police cells has worsened since then. I have some comments that were made by Sue Richley, in April of this year. She is the deputy chairman of the bench at South Western magistrates' court, which is a major court in the south of London. Although it is not in my constituency, it is in the borough of which I am one of the Members. I shall not quote all that she said, but these are some of the matters to which she referred. She described the conditions that she had seen and referred to the conditions at the court in Lavender Hill and in similar cells that she had visited elsewhere in London. She said:
These court cells were made for people to be kept in for no more than four hours while they were waiting to appear in court. Some are being held for weeks and many for several days.
There is no proper bed, just a kind of bench that pulls out from the wall on which the
police officers
put an old mattress …
There is no room for a chair or table or any furniture…
There are washing facilities but they are very poor…
There is nowhere for
people
to put their belongings. They just keep everything stored up in lots of plastic bags.
Those comments were made by a magistrate in April 1987. Wandsworth prison is in my constituency. Over the years I have visited that prison on many occasions, so I have a fair idea of what conditions should be like for people who are being held in prison. Prison standing order 8A clearly says:

An unconvicted prisoner will he afforded immediate and ample facilities for communicating with his relatives, friends and legal advisers.
As well, he has the right to daily changes of clothes arid the right to have food brought in from outside by relatives or friends. That is all denied to the men and women kept in police custody.
Two of my constituents have been held in custody for four months. The wife was shunted around—the only description that I can give—for weeks from police cell to police cell. She is now held in Holloway prison. Likewise, her husband was shunted around and he is now held in police cells in Northamptonshire. His home is in my constituency in Wandsworth. When his relatives sought to visit him, they were denied access and told that visits were not allowed.
Last week I took up this matter with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). As a result of pressure, my constituent is now allowed visits once a week. For more than three months that husband and wife have been denied access to each other. They are convicted of no offence. They are in custody on remand, but that proves nothing. We all know that vast numbers of people are remanded in custody and are often acquitted and discharged. I have two letters which the Leader of the House might like to see. The husband is now on a hunger strike, protesting at the refusal by the authorities to allow him to see his wife. It is an utter disgrace that such conditions are imposed on people who have not been convicted of any offence.
Time does not permit me to outline what I think should be done. I happen to know a bit about prisons, and I disagree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). The tragedy is that far too many people are in prison. A great many should never have been put in prison. They may need some form of care, but not prison. So long as they are in police custody, constituents such as mine will suffer the basic denial of what are their rights even though they are held in custody. If my constituents were held in prison they could enjoy all those rights that are clearly stated in prison rule books.
I beg the Leader of the House to take up this matter with the Home Office. I have quoted the comments in 1983 of the former Home Secretary the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks. The position has worsened since then. There are people living in the most degarding conditions that one can imagine. They are denied access to relatives and friends. My constituents, who have been married for many years and have children, are denied their rights. This is an utter outrage and I beg the Leader of the House to do something about it, and as soon as possible, not only for my constituents, but for the many men and women also suffering under these conditions.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I rise with some trepidation, as this is my maiden speech, and with some confusion about what maiden speeches should be. I have sat through this debate and many others in the short time since I became a Member thinking that maiden speeches should be uncontroversial and related to a subject pertaining to one's constituency. But it seems that that message has not got through to several Labour Members. I sat through one maiden speech this afternoon by a Labour Member feeling considerable resentment about his arrogant assumption


that he had a monopoly on care. Some of us have become Members because we care about people. We care deeply about the people in our constituencies. We shall not take from Labour Members in what are supposed to be uncontroversial speeches assumptions that we lack care and that they have a monopoly on it. As the hon. Gentleman who made that assumption is not here, I hope that he will read Hansard to find the depth of my feeling and, I am sure, that of many of my hon. Friends on the matter. I am sure that you will be relieved to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is the last controversial matter to which I shall refer.
I have the great honour of standing in the House as the Member for Esher. That seat has been the subject of two previous maiden speeches since the war. The last was by my predecessor, Sir Carol Mather, in 1970. He spent 17 happy years here working hard for his constituents, the last 11 as a Whip. Before entering the House Carol Mather spent 22 years serving in the Welsh Guards and, sadly, was one of the declining number of hon. Members who had a Military Cross for the services he rendered for this country in the last war. He was a heroic man. Sometimes that was not always noticed because of his quiet disposition. His service as a liaison officer to Montgomery, his capture and subsequent escape and many other incidents during the war are a tribute to him. The constituents of Esher were proud to have him as their Member for 17 years, during which he assiduously looked after their interests, never failing to take up a case and always being particularly interested in the concerns which they brought to him. As I said, this is a proud moment for me to make my first speech as his successor.
It is also a proud moment for me to mention Esher. Not everyone necessarily knows of the joys of Esher. If one drives down the A3, even perhaps slightly faster than the official speed limit, one may not necessarily notice the beauty of the countryside which lies on either side. On the section of the M25 that abuts onto the A3 to the east, one may be going too fast, finding too much other traffic or hearing too much road noise—a matter to which I draw the attention of the House—to notice the green fields and the quiet tranquility of the area. I urge those hon. Members who adopt that fast practice to see some of the lovely villages that comprise the constituency, including Thames Ditton, Claygate, Ripley, East Horsley—villages of great distinction—and perhaps to shop in Cobham, which has an ancient mill site of interest. I commend some of the fine houses in the constituency, many now looked after by the National Trust. I urge a visit to Claremont, a house with tragic associations, with the death of Lord Clive and the premature death in childbirth of Princess Charlotte. It has a more appealing interest as well in the sense that it is connected with Vanhrugh, Kent and Capability Brown—a worthy tribute to their work, especially in the gardens which are well worth the time spent away from the A3.
There are many other facets of the constituency which I should draw to the attention of the House, perhaps most notably the Royal Horticultural Society gardens at Wisley—a fine example of the way in which we in Britain can not only talk about gardens but grow them. As perhaps the world's worst gardener, I look with complete admiration at everything on display at Wisley.
Another aspect of my constituency that is worthy of note is the great voluntary spirit, which is part of the way of life of this country of ours. People join together to do things that the Government do not do and should not be looked to to do because they are so much better done by the community. One example of which the people of Esher are justifiably proud is the Princess Alice hospice, put together through voluntary donations and of great service to those who, sadly, need its help.
The constituency that I represent houses 62,500 electors or thereabouts who reside in parts of the boroughs of Elmbridge and Guildford. It is bounded by the river Thames, and the river Mole and the river Wey also play their part. As I said, I urge hon. Members to come and look for themselves. If they do, they will be greatly impressed by the wonderful commons, fields and farmland which make up a rural setting in close proximity to London. That is the matter to which I wish to refer today.
In an age of economic growth it is vital that we should remember how important it is to preserve the environment and thus the quality of life. If we fail in that duty now, it will be too late to try to recover the environment for the generations who come after us. The green belt around London—of course, it applies to other cities, too, but I am speaking particularly of the area that I represent—enables people to travel and find countryside rapidly. That is not possible in many other countries that I have visited. The green belt was brought in by statutory instrument in 1955 and the provisions strengthened in circular 14/84. People living in and near the areas that it affects have reason to be eternally grateful for it. There is every justification for continuing the green belt, partly because it enhances the quality of life to which I referred. We need to stop villages coalescing into one great concrete jungle and to prevent complete over-building in the south-east, which would prevent us from enjoying environmental pleasures and which would result in overcrowding and overuse of facilities and roads. Far from representing bad planning the green belt restrictions represent extremely good planning. They encourage industries to locate in other parts of the country—which many hon. Members would welcome—rather than trying to develop the green fields of the south-east. The green belt is critical for other reasons. It is one of those great environmental developments which have awakened the better spirit of people in the south-east and made them go out and work for themselves in their residents' associations and so on, to protect themselves from possible encroachment.
The green belt is a vital matter of Government concern. The green belt and threats to it lie at the very heart of the relationship between central and local government—whether the interests of the locality should take precedent. I was delighted by the statement of the Government in the previous Parliament to the effect that they would resist further encroachments into the green belt. I am especially mindful of the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) in his previous incarnation. He made it quite clear to property developers who wished to build large and unwanted shopping complexes on green belt land that they would have to suffer the full costs of any application for appeal against local objections because there would be a presumption against such schemes. I have in mind the Elmbridge mall scheme in Esher, which many of us fervently hope will not go ahead. It is unwanted and unnecessary and will be of no advantage to the local environment. I hope that


Ministers' statements will be further developed into a coherent policy. That would be a good theme for the Government to pursue in this, the European Year of the Environment.
In its 1984 report the Select Committee on the Environment said: that the green belt should he sacrosanct. I endorse that view and I have already stated the reasons why. Many of my constituents are very concerned about the confusing signals which are coming from the Government and which arise out of the current process of planning appeals. There are many occasions when coherent local objections to a scheme seem to be overridden when the developer has gone to appeal, the inspector has reported and the Secretary of State has made a decision. It is important in a democratic society that we realise that this gives rise to immense frustration at local level. Where there is clearly stated local opposition to a scheme, we must ensure that there does not appear to be an imposition of a different decision from above. If the Secretary of State for the Environment has no alternative—because the statute leaves him no alternative—the Government should seriously consider whether the statutes are correct or whether they need further review. During the lifetime of this Parliament I shall push hard to make sure that the statutes say what my constituents feel they should say—that is, to give prime responsibility for such matters to local interests.
Borough councils have a major responsibility to ensure that the green belt that we are protecting is kept in good condition and does not become scrubland or run down. They have a duty to plant and maintain trees and to maintain and improve common land. They must look for sensible and sympathetic alternative uses of farm buildings so that the farmers do not have to break up their farmland into small units, which is a subject of great concern. National Government have a responsibility in this respect also. We need to consider rural planning policies in view of the development pressure and movement of people and industries in the south-east. If developers could not hope to override local interests by going to appeal to the Secretary of State, that could reduce the speculative purchase of land by developers who think that, if they keep trying, ultimately they will win.
Many property developers are ingenious men with a great deal of willpower. If they were told that there would never be an opportunity for them to have land banks in the green belt—because they would never be given the right to develop them—they might turn their ingenuity, enthusiasm and financial acumen to some of our inner-city areas and derelict land. That happens to be a crucial and highly welcome plank of this Government's policies. It is a major part of the Queen's Speech. For the Government to establish this central platform for their current legislation, it is vital for them never to reduce the controls on the green belt and to ensure that, by removing hope from the developers, they also remove some of the pressure which is causing people so much concern.
This matter goes to the heart of some of our debates, and especially the debate between central and local government. I commend the green belt issue to the House. It has a wide interest for those of us who fervently believe in the environmental matters which are so important to our way of life and our quality of life. It will be a major part of our forthcoming debates on issues which may, at first sight, not appear to be directly relevant to it.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It falls to me to congratulate the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) on his maiden speech. He showed us that he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of his constituency and did a fine job as an advocate of tourism in the area. He also paid a fine tribute to his predecessor in the House.
I shall speak only briefly because of the limited time available to me. My remarks are addressed essentially to the Government, but they also have implications for members of the official Opposition. How will the Government and the official Opposition respond to the fact that the Government have no mandate to rule in Scotland? I remind the House that, of the 72 Members of Parliament from Scotland, 62 sit on the Opposition Benches and only 10 on the Government Benches. Despite consistent pressure since the State Opening of Parliament and throughout the debate on the Loyal Address, there has been no positive response from the Government on how they will handle Scottish affairs or respond to the election results north of the border.
The issue has been exercising the minds of people not only in the House but in the media in Scotland. The issues have not only been mentioned by Opposition Members. There has been pressure from the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who said:
It is commonly said that we must remain a united kingdom … The parrot cry that we must just have a united kingdom bears no relationship to the reality of modern times."—[Official Report, 2 July 1987; Vol. 118, c. 666.]
The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said:
I have to say that I do not easily entertain the prospect of going through this Parliament assuming that we shall continue the present basis for Scottish affairs without consideration."—[Official Report, 30 June 1987; Vol. 118, c. 398.]
Both right hon. Members urged that attention be paid to the Scottish dimension.
Added to this, last week the Government found themselves in a dilemma when looking for Members to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Three of the five Conservative Members who were available to serve on that Committee refused to do so. That may have left the Government in a dilemma, but it has left Scotland with a major problem. The work of Ministers should come under effective scrutiny from Back-Bench Members. If we do not have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs because Government Members refuse to serve on it, there are plenty of Opposition Members prepared to serve on such a Committee to ensure that legislation is subjected to the scrutiny that it needs. It is not as though there were not enough issues for the Select Committee to discuss. We must consider the Government of Scotland itself; the prospect of nuclear dumping; the future of Ravenscraig; the prospect of many of our industries being taken over; the dilemma of the whisky industry in the wake of the Guinness takeover; the problems of agriculture and fishing; and, not least, the poll tax.
It would be wrong for the House to adjourn until the Government gave us clear guidance on how they will respond to the election results in Scotland. It is not good enough to ask Scottish Members to return to their constituencies during the recess unable to say, "We will ensure that these issues are raised in the House through the appropriate channels." The Government seem to be unwilling to establish a Select Committee.
The official Opposition in Scotland also have a major responsibility. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) leads a band of 50. The people of Scotland have given a mandate to the Labour party, and we ask the Labour party to take a clear initiative on this. Or, as is predicted in some newspapers in Scotland, will it be no action yet again from the Labour party, but only oratory? The hon. Member for Garscadden may laugh, but the Labour party is looking constantly over its shoulder at the concept of independence as propounded by the Scottish National party. The Labour party in Scotland has already had eight years to deliver the Scottish people from the Government's economic policies, but they have failed signally to do so. Another four years of similarly inept opposition will be rejected by the people of Scotland at the next general election. The Labour party is equally on trial.

Mr. Alan Williams: This is my first opportunity to tell the new Leader of the House how glad I am to see him in that role and how much I hope that he will enjoy it. He more than anyone will appreciate the difficulty of following the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who was held in genuine affection by hon. Members on both sides of the House and whose humour and eloquence of phrase dominated much of the previous Parliament.
Today we have heard a series of excellent maiden speeches. The debate lends itself to such speeches, and all the hon. Members who spoke today did great credit to themselves and to their constituents.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) was fortunate to be the first to be put out of her misery. Although I was not in the Chamber to hear her speech—I was attending a meeting—I understand that she can preserve for her memoirs a unique commendation from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who described her speech as formidable. Although my right hon. Friend is a controversial figure in the House, he is also recognised as a master of the parliamentary arts, and such a comment from him must mean that the hon. Lady's speech was well worth listening to.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) made an extremely articulate and good maiden speech. He was extremely gracious in his remarks about a friend whom we were sorry to see leaving the House. As he said, Alf Dubs is an extremely nice man of great diligence who looked after his constituents assiduously. The hon. Gentleman claimed that Battersea was the original yuppie land. It is the normal tradition in the House to try to find something nice to say about one's constituency! But I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's contribution and look forward to hearing from him again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) made a wide-ranging maiden speech which was a mixture of humour and conviction. He paid tribute to a dear friend of mine and of yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hugh Brown entered the House at the same time as we did, and the House will miss him sorely. My hon. Friend's speech was hardly non-controversial, but, as we heard about the problems of his constituency, we understood why he thought he needed to speak in that way. He mentioned the problems of the poll tax. I share his

incredulity that, having drawn the correct conclusion that the present tax system is wrong, the Government decided to put in its place something that is unfairer and more difficult to defend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Provan mentioned fluoridation. That issue gave rise to some strange coalitions across the Floor of the House during the previous Parliament. I remember the many bitter opponents of fluoridation fighting well into the night on the issue. I wish that we had had an extra ally and an extra vote then. It is interesting that fluoridation was considered outside the context of the possible privatisation of the water system. One is bound to wonder how the decision making that is left to the water authorities at the moment will be handled and whether the indemnification that has been given to the public bodies will still exist for private organisations.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) made a maiden speech in which he referred to Richard Wainwright, his predecessor as a respected Member. That certainly is the case. Richard and I were both made Privy Councillors on the same day and I have always felt great friendship and affection for him. I was glad to hear the hon. Member speak of him as he did. I understand that the constituency has never had a Conservative Member of Parliament. That is one record that I am rather sorry to see broken, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. As far as I can gather from his speech, it seems that his constituents spend half their lives in support of hounds pursuing all the poor wretched animals in his constituency. He made an impassioned plea for blood sports, although, after listening to the later part of his speech, I could not help thinking that he wanted to replace the fox with the planners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) made a singularly articulate speech. It was controversial but very effective and very powerful. He spoke with as little affection of the poll tax as did my hon. Friend the Member for Provan. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) spoke with pride of his membership of the House. I say quite genuinely that I hope it is a pride that he carries however long he stays in the House. I think the Leader of the House would say the same as myself. I have been here 23 years and whenever I walk into the Chamber I think that it is a unique privilege and a unique honour. Having a marginal seat, I am always delighted when I am re-elected, to my incredulity, at successive elections. What he said was appreciated on all sides of the House. He made an impassioned plea for the preservation of the green belt, which I am sure will strike many a reflective chord in his constituency. I am glad to see that we have someone who intends to set out to become the terror of the developers in the new Parliament.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is, if she will excuse the phrase, a recycled Member. It is good to see her back and to hear her speak again. I think she will not be offended if I say that I almost recognised some of her phrases. I am quite sure that she will be as combative and active as she was when she was previously here. I look forward to her further speeches.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) referred to the voting shambles. It certainly sounded that, and it merits a proper investigation. It is interesting to note that there is another form of disfranchisement that has also inadvertently taken place. A consequence of the bed and breakfast legislation,


unintended as it was, is that a lot of youngsters are moving around so frequently that there is now a virtual disfranchised army of should-be young voters. It is a quite serious problem that I expect every hon. Member has encountered. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) made a very effective constituency speech. His indictment of the attitude of the Home Office on immigration, when he said that if one can prove that one does not want to come here it is willing to let one in, was effectively made.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) referred to the issue that we discussed earlier today—the Wright book and the way in which it has been handled by the Government. The Leader of the House knows that a feeling I have had for a long time and which I have repeated frequently is that it is a matter of great disbelief to me that here in this mother of Parliaments we can have a Prime Minister, Law Officers and even Government Back Benchers who are utterly disinterested that there was an attempt to organise a coup to overthrow an elected Government. I find that bewildering and more than slightly worrying.
I was deeply disturbed to hear earlier today that the Librarian of the House has been told that he must not hold a copy of the Wright book. We hope to pursue that further because the Librarian takes his instructions from the Speaker via the appropriate committee, and purely through that route. The Committee and the Chairman do not exist. As the Speaker was unaware of any such instruction having been given, we want to know who told the Librarian that he is not to hold a copy of a book which any of our constituents travelling to America will be able to buy and probably bring back, but which Members of Parliament arc to be denied the opportunity to read.
Despite all the arguments that my hon. Friends put forward for our not going on recess in a fortnight's time, I am very much looking forward to that opportunity.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): We have had a wide-ranging debate, in which many points have been raised, and I will do my best briefly to answer as many as I can. If there are any specific points that I do not answer, I will certainly write to the hon. Member who raised the point.
As this is the first Adjournment debate for a number of years that has not been led either in person or in proxy by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), it would be wrong of me not to say how much Government Members appreciated his courtesy. He is a formidable parliamentary orator. He had a distinguished Front Bench career over 20 years and we will miss him from the Front Bench. However, I have no doubt that he will make his presence felt in many ways in the years to come.
As the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said, we have had six maiden speeches—three from the Government side and three from the Opposition side. I am sure that all who made their maiden speeches today can be well pleased. They made vigorous and forceful speeches. There was nothing stereotyped about any of them. Each hon. Member spoke from his or her constituency point of view about things they felt very concerned about. Their constituencies can be proud of the way that they have started their parliamentary careers.
We heard first the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). She made her constituency sound very attractive to me. I have to sail my boat to where I want to go on holiday, and from where my boat is situated at present the 88 days of the summer recess will not get me around to Argyll. However, I am tempted to do it in two stints—this year and next year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) made a very effective speech. I have known my hon. Friend for many years and I am delighted to see him in the House. I know that he will make many more speeches. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) spoke well and with sincerity about things that he feels passionately about. Having been the Chief Whip when the Fluoridation Bill went through, I hope that he does not take it amiss that I am glad that he was not around in those days to cause us additional problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) certainly made a very effective speech about the opportunities and problems in his constituency. He spoke about the difficulties that many of his constituents and businesses have with planning controls. I am delighted that he found time in his speech to make a reference to field sports.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) made an impassioned and effective speech. We shall certainly listen to his future contributions with added respect.
The predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), Sir Carol Mather, and I spent many years together and, I might add, many nights together in the Whips Office. He is one of my dearest friends. My hon. Friend made an effective speech, in which he talked about the problems of the process and the interaction of central and local government and of the problems of the green belt. I look forward to more contributions from him in the future.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) raised the subject of the Peter Wright book, as did the right hon. Member for Swansea, West. It is wrong to say that the Government do not take this matter extremely seriously. I advise anybody who has any doubts about that to look at the comprehensive statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 6 May 1987. That set out in great detail the position the Government have taken and what has been done in the way of investigating the claims. I do not want to add any more than that except to say that it is not true to say it was not dealt with carefully and with a great deal of trouble. However, I should remind the House that in the New South Wales proceedings the Government are seeking to uphold the lifelong duty of confidentiality that is owed by all members of the security services, present or former, to preserve the confidentiality in respect of matters arising from their work. unless authorised to publish. That is an important principle and I believe that the Government are right to do everything in their power to seek to uphold it.

Mr. Alan Williams: If it is so important to uphold that principle in Australia, why is it not important to uphold the same principle in the United States?

Mr. Wakeham: The Government's legal advisers will advise on what to do. It is not for me to comment any further on the matter except to say that the Government will take all steps possible to preserve that principle.
The question as to whether the book should be put in the Library is a matter for Mr. Speaker and not the Government. It must ultimately be for the House to decide these matters if there is any difficulty.

Mr. Winnick: Is it possible for the Leader of the House to use his good offices to try to ensure that there is a statement on the position arising from the fact that the book is being published in America and will be freely available for anyone who comes in from the United States? Could we have a statement this week on that aspect?

Mr. Wakeham: I will look at that matter, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any encouragement to think that there will be a further statement from the Government this week on that aspect.
My hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) and for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) raised the matter of postal voting. I know that the Home Secretary is concerned about that. I know that he is looking into it and I will see that the points raised are referred to him.
I know that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) is in contact with the Home Secretary. I heard his speech and I recognise the careful and sincere way in which he put the points of his constituents. I can do no more than say that I will refer his remarks and the way in which he made them to the Home Secretary to see whether anything can he done to assist his constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate raised other matters concerning the size of envelopes and the postal service. I shall refer the matter of the postal service generally to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I will see that the chairman of the Post Office knows about it. I feel that I should look into the matter of envelopes for the House of Commons myself and I shall certainly see what can be done. I shall refer the disturbing information about Camden and the difficulties my hon. Friend's constituents have over the right to buy to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) showed a great knowledge of the problems of his constituents. He clearly knows a great deal about the way in which the police service and custody should be organised in this country. What he said caused me some concern. He has courteously sent me correspondence so that I can see that the Home Secretary has the matters immediately in hand and will write to him to give him any information he can.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 22.

Division No. 15]
[7.04 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Beith, A. J.


Alton, David
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Amess, David
Benyon, W.


Amos, Alan
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arbuthnot, James
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Ashby, David
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, David
Bottomley, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baldry, Tony
Bowis, John


Batiste, Spencer
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brandon-Bravo, Martin





Brazier, Julian
Knapman, Roger


Bright, Graham
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Knowles, Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Lang, Ian


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Lawrence, Ivan


Buck, Sir Antony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Burns, Simon
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Burt, Alistair
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Butcher, John
Lilley, Peter


Butler, Chris
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Butterfill, John
Lord, Michael


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Maclean, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Madel, David


Carrington, Matthew
Malins, Humfrey


Carttiss, Michael
Mans, Keith


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Marlow, Tony


Chapman, Sydney
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Chope, Christopher
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Mates, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Maude, Hon Francis


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Cope, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Couchman, James
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Cran, James
Miller, Hal


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mills, Iain


Curry, David
Miscampbell, Norman


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Day, Stephen
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Devlin, Tim
Moore, Rt Hon John


Dorrell, Stephen
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Dover, Den
Moss, Malcolm


Durant, Tony
Neubert, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Nicholls, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Favell, Tony
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Paice, James


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Pawsey, James


Fookes, Miss Janet
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Forman, Nigel
Porter, David (Waveney)


Forth, Eric
Portillo, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Price, Sir David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Raffan, Keith


Franks, Cecil
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Freeman, Roger
Rathbone, Tim


French, Douglas
Redwood, John


Gardiner, George
Rhodes James, Robert


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Gill, Christopher
Riddick, Graham


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Roe, Mrs Marion


Gorst, John
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Gow, Ian
Rowe, Andrew


Gower, Sir Raymond
Sackville, Hon Tom


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Ground, Patrick
Shaw, David (Dover)


Grylls, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Harris, David
Shersby, Michael


Hayward, Robert
Sims, Roger


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hind, Kenneth
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Holt, Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Howells, Geraint
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Steen, Anthony


Hunter, Andrew
Stern, Michael


Jack, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Janman, Timothy
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Jessel, Toby
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Summerson, Hugo


Kirkhope, Timothy
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Kirkwood, Archy
Taylor, John M (Solihull)






Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Thorne, Neil
Wiggin, Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wilshire, David


Tracey, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wood, Timothy


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Yeo, Tim


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walden, George



Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wallace, James
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Richard Ryder.


Waller, Gary



Watts, John





NOES


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Madden, Max


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Mullin, Chris


Corbyn, Jeremy
Nellist, Dave


Cox, Tom
Pike, Peter


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Skinner, Dennis


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Wall, Pat


Hardy, Peter



Livingstone, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Macdonald, Calum
Mr. Bob Cryer and


McTaggart, Bob
Mr. Harry Barnes

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 24th July, do adjourn until Wednesday 21st October.

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(1) (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Benyon.]

Orders of the Day — British Broadcasting Corporation

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is an honour and a pleasure to introduce the debate upon the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. Although I have done so once before, far more frequently during my parliamentary career I have laboured on during the watches of the night. Therefore, it is a fair reward for a "Consolidated Funder" that, on occasions, he gets to speak at 7.16 pm. I shall speak on a subject about which I care very much and in which I have absolutely no interest whatsoever to declare other than a strong belief in the British Broadcasting Corporation and—perhaps even more important—a strong belief in its capacity to play a formidable role in the British interest abroad. The importance of satellite television in general and satellite television news in particular is recognised in all parts of the House. In a few moments, I shall refer to certain early-day motions that were tabled only a few months ago during the final stages of the last Parliament.
Satellite television news is a fact of life. All concerned with it recognise it to be the way of the future. Various concerns in various countries are rapidly expanding into satellite television, whereas we are patiently waiting. We have to, because the BBC has no option but to approach the Government in the matter. It is not a matter of going cap in hand; it is an approach that has to be made. Although other countries are expanding satellite television, we are patiently waiting for a Government decision.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been considering the matter. I appreciate that it is complicated and that policy questions are involved. That is one of the reasons I raise the matter now. I hope that it will be an additional spur to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and his right hon. and hon. colleagues to consider matters that are important to the national interest with all due speed. My hon. Friend's Department has been aware of the matter since November 1986. As the months go by—one cannot help but think that a year will soon pass—matters get more and more difficult for BBC external services as others are beginning, continuing and developing satellite television. It is no excuse for Government to say—as my hon. Friend says, it is not for me to anticipate his contribution—that they want details on this or that. So far, since the submission of the matter in November 1986, the Foreign and


Commonwealth Office having known of the matter for many months before that, there has been no reaction other than to ask for details.
The demand for a decision, as I have said, is within the knowledge, and I hope has the support, of the House. Two early-day motions were tabled—of course, I had a lot to do with them—in the last stages of the last Parliament in only April of this year. Both those motions were interlinked and together give a measure of Back-Bench support—not just Conservative Back-Bench support—for a decision on this matter.
Early-day motion 846 was tabled during the previous Parliament with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), myself and others as principal signatories. It stressed the urgency of the overall situation. It made no mention of the BBC, but drew the Government's attention to the fast expansion that was taking place in satellite television. It urged the Government to declare support for a United Kingdom programme of satellite television news. I repeat that that motion made no mention of the BBC. It was a totall Conservative motion, put down on 3 April 1987, and by 15 May, when the House was already up and we were about to fight the general election, it had gathered 145 signatues. Those 145 Conservative signatures represented more than half of those on the Conservative Benches who can sign early-day motions. I ask the Minister to take note of that.
Early-day motion 852 was put down by me and was an all-party motion. It was tabled several days after the previous motion, but by 15 May it had gathered 224 signatories from all parts of the House. If we include an amendment, which was not unfriendly, that motion had 230 supporters in all. It was a BBC motion and it overtly urged the Government to allow the BBC to proceed with satellite television news as soon as possible. In other words, it urged the Government to make up their mind. Of the 224 signatories to that motion, it is perhaps educative for my hon. Friend if I put it on record that there were 118 Conservative signatures, 90 Labour signatures, 12 alliance signatures and four others.
If this matter is raised again, it is important for my hon. Friend to realise the support from all sides of the House for a decision on this matter. The 118 Conservative supporters represented almost all the 145 who had signed the motion that made no mention of the BBC. I sent out letters to exactly the same people who had signed the first motion, asking for their support for early-day motion 852, and only 27 declined overtly to support the BBC. There is a lesson for us from those early-day motions.
The present situation is that satellite television and satellite television news is a fact of life. Equally, it is also a fact that a formidable American lead has been built up. Such a lead is not automatically attractive to everybody, not least the Third world, that would, perhaps, like something a little different and a little more balanced. Let me run through those who are engaged in satellite television news. Cable News Network, CNN, is marketing its 24-hour news service all over the world. Columbia Broadcasting System is marketing its evening news in Europe. National Broadcasting Company is selling its "Today" programme to Australia and is marketing its news programme on European cable. Independent

Television News—this debate is not, in any way, an occasion to criticise ITN—is in Europe via Superchannel.
Good luck to ITN, but my message to the Front Bench is to let the BBC in as well. It is wrong that the BBC should be kept out because of its structure and charter. However, I applaud ITN's efforts and the fact that it is marketing a European news programme on the Superchannel. That programme is directed for a commercial return. An important point to bear in mind is that ITN, in common with others, is not making much money at the moment. However, it is investing in the future and it is a commercial future. Indeed, for everyone concerned except for the BBC it is a commercial venture.
ITN has linked hands with the mighty American Broadcasting Corporation to form World Television News and is planning a 24-hour cable satellite news service. Again, that will be a commerical undertaking. Those are commercial undertakings, but another important category we should not forget is Government—offered free services. Among our European partners, the French are already seriously considering that option with regard to Francophone countries. Bearing in mind France's track record on cultural diplomacy and its expenditure on such matters, I have no doubt that the French will pursue that option. The United States Information Agency has a free service in operation on the Worldnet service for news on television via satellite. That news is available to anyone, anywhere, who can take satellite television. However, an important point to consider is that there is a third category, a unique category—the BBC.
Although the BBC may be dependent upon Government for its finances, the whole essence of the BBC is that it is independent of Government when it comes to its broadcasts. It is a unique category, so it should be treated with all due respect and consideration.
The importance of satellite television has been recognised. It is vital for international communication, commerce and information. In many respects, information equals influence. I happen to believe—I trust that it is not a jingoistic, nationalistic comment to make—that this country has an influence for good. That influence should be displayed across the world, if only the Minister and his Department would allow the BBC to exert that influence.
With regard to the development of satellite television there is a demand—it will become apparent—for the BBC to enter this area. Although the BBC is not in the game at the moment, and although it has not seriously marketed a project, there have already been many favourable approaches. ITN is already in the game, quite rightly so; it can go out and sell something. It has taken every opportunity, via the newspapers, to inform us of the progress it has made. However, the BBC has its hands firmly tied behind its back. The BBC could sign up 10 countries tomorrow. Indeed, 20 other countries have made it clear that they would want the service, but they would be unable to pay in whole or in part for the service.
That problem brings us to the realm of public service broadcasting in the international context. The BBC will, if it is allowed, quickly expand. There is an enormous potential for the BBC within the Third world, where the news service is much wanted. I believe—I do not want to embarrass my hon. Friend; indeed, I am sure that he


will smile—that there is considerable support for what I am saying within his Department. I trust that I am not being too optimistic about that.
There are difficulties—piracy, censorship and so on—but we must make a start. We must endeavour to create the demand. We already have examples to prove that that demand is there. I was amused by the German example. East Germany, and in particular East Berlin, can get West German television. When the East German Government considered their position, such was the demand from the rest of East Germany to receive West German television that the Government had to make arrangements to supply that service throughout East Germany. Therefore, virtually all that country receives the television broadcasts from the Federal Republic.
We have encouraging signs from the Soviet Union thanks to Mr. Gorbachev and what he is endeavouring to do under the policy of so-called openness. It is no accident that, as part of that policy, Western leaders have been allowed to appear on Soviet television. That development is extremely relevant when we discuss satellite television news. Those Western leaders have been allowed to say exactly what they want, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Before my right hon. Friend went to Moscow, the BBC Russian service was unjammed. Shortly after my right hon. Friend returned from Moscow, the Voice of America was unjammed. I am not attempting to suggest that the Voice of America is a blinding example of neutrality, but it is now being transmitted into the Soviet Union.
The possibilities are enormous. The future is beyond the satellite and the take-up of satellites by national networks and cable. The future will be the age of the dish. I have seen a few dishes and I appreciate what they are like. I have seen them sitting on top of the odd school. However, in general, such dishes are for the rich and the ingenious. It is surprising how many people, even now, are endeavouring to make them and the number who, within a short period and in various countries, will make them. It is no accident that the USIA, with its Worldnet publications that are associated with the service, is publicising how to "do it yourself" and make a dish. Of course, that body wants people in many different countries to have dishes and to listen in.
The impact of satellite for the future is being seriously considered in the Eastern bloc and in many Communist countries. I believe that there was an article in Pravda quite recently that went into this in some detail, so seriously does the Soviet Union take this matter.
A matter of vital concern are the qualifications that the BBC needs to participate. Hon. Members are aware of many of the arguments and I intend to run through them reasonably swiftly. Lord Reith began external broadcasting on the radio 55 years ago, so the BBC has 55 years' experience of external international broadcasting. Incidentally, as my hon. Friend knows, Lord Reith could not get the money either. However, he was able to raid his own funds to get the money, but that cannot be done now because of the structure. The licence fee cannot be raided.
I hesitate to say it, and I hope that it is not now true, but the Government then—I hope not now—did not have the imagination to appreciate what we now realise was one of the most remarkable feats of external broadcasting in the world. The external services give the BBC's efforts credibility and their audience has been built

up to 125 million. When travelling, we have all encountered people hurrying out of rooms and from under the so-called palm tree to listen to it.
That credibility has been achieved at the price of discomfort from time to time. I give one relevant example, about which one or two people, inside and outside Government, have been concerned. Many people say that the Iran revolution was brought on by the BBC's external services. I think that I am entitled—with, as the Minister knows, an Iranian wife who had a considerable stake in the ancient regime there and whose family had to flee that country because of the revolution—to make it clear to the House that those accusations against the BBC are untrue. The BBC spoke the truth. Enormous pressure was put on it. In my humble way, I, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), was asked by the then Iranian embassy to go over the scripts at the BBC. We did that. However, my hon. Friend, with his previous journalistic experience, and I, with knowledge of Iran, could not find anything wrong. I might add that I did more than reading scripts, because I followed the matter in some detail for many months. It is wrong to think that, because the BBC speaks the truth, it should be accused of bringing somebody down. How much worse it would have been had the BBC not spoken the truth, but the Government in Iran had fallen anyway—as, I am sad to say, was probable.
As for the BBC's qualifications and readiness, it has the appropriate structure in place. It has the experience that it has gained in radio. It has more foreign correspondents than any other organisation engaged in this enterprise. As I have said, it also has tradition and credibility. It has the news resources and the backing of Television Centre, wit h all its expertise.
On cost and timing, I hope my hon. Friends will sympathise and agree that the sort of money that we are discussing will hardly break the bank. I advise my hon. Friend that it is not a question of the BBC coming cap in hand or demanding more and more money or saying that, because it is part of the public sector, we, the great strong Government, cannot give it the money for which it asks. Satellite television will involve considerable returns and considerable profits will increasingly be available. I dare say that from time to time one would have to sort out the balance between the BBC's public service element and the profitable activities that will be available to it. The capital costs will be £1·4 million, and £7·8 million per annum will be required to run it on the basis of a five-day service with all possible economies. Obviously, a seven-day service would be more expensive: indeed, one could spend more money on the whole thing if one wished.
We should remember that at the moment nobody is making money out of satellite television but at least the private sector is offering a loss leader and is considering the future. However, the hands of the BBC are tied firmly behind its back in its efforts to get in on the same thing. The income offset at the end of the second year is estimated to be about £2 million, which will increase as developments are made. Satellite television can be on the air in six months and fully operational in one year.
I refer now to the BBC's overall position and to the arguments against it. The BBC is different, if not unique—I have used that word before—because it is not a commercial operation. It is a public corporation and must


conduct itself according to its charter, which does not permit it to put up venture capital or to do anything that its competitors in this area—rightly—can do.
As hon. Members know, the BBC's external services are funded somewhat differently from the BBC overall. They are funded by Her Majesty's Government through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There is no way in which the BBC's external services can touch the licence fee. Therefore, by their creation and existence, they become dependent on the Government. They need Government consent even to borrow. I do not suggest that they should borrow money for what I see as a public service broadcasting operation in the interests of the country.
We are grateful to my hon. Friend for the level of BBC external funding and I am sure that he will tell us how generous the Government have been to the BBC's external services. We are all looking forward to hearing the facts and figures. The level of external funding for the BBC is about £114 million. The overall increases, about which my hon. Friend will tell us, have been extremely welcome and, as he knows, much is capital expenditure for the audibility programme. However, my recent experiences suggest that the BBC's external services could be a little more audible still. Many things are more audible than the BBC's external services as anybody knows who has struggled to receive them. Similarly, anybody who has visited Bush House knows that it is not a plush operation, and nobody pretends that it is.
I remind my hon. Friend of something that happened in, I believe, November 1983. The increases in expenditure have become broadly acceptable—there have been no rebellions in the Chamber in the shape of votes—but they were achieved after one of the biggest Conservative Back-Bench revolts on foreign affairs, when no fewer than 60 of my hon. Friends, including every officer of the Back-Bench Foreign and Commonwealth Committee, either abstained or voted against the Government. It was miraculous to see the effect that that had. I warn my hon. Friend that there could be similar goings-on unless, with his usual sensitive responsiveness, he urges the Foreign Secretary to take action on this matter, in conjunction with the Prime Minister.
As I have mentioned, the BBC is not a Government information service. Unlike USIA, and Voice of America, the BBC is vigorously independent; that is why it is trusted. The BBC represents the concept of public service broadcasting. We accept the BBC nationally. Although it has had its critics from time to time, the nation does accept that it embodies the concept of public service broadcasting. Thus, the fundamental argument is that it is utterly wrong to prevent the BBC from doing what it is best created, suited and fitted to do internationally on a public service basis, provided that one can sustain its qualifications—which, in my view, are easy to sustain. There is also the fact that it has an obvious role internationally.
I said that I would mention a few of the general policy arguments against the BBC. Her Majesty's Government must consider these as part of their policy considerations. This is a vital area for the future status and role of the United Kingdom and will approximate what radio has achieved with the switching on of short-wave sets and so on. It is the Government's duty to act in our best interests. We would all agree with that. We have a unique

international asset in the BBC. Moreover, any course of governmental action other than to allow the BBC to go ahead with what it has been created to do would throw that considerable national asset away. With that background to the decision, I shall deal with one or two of the policy options and considerations.
One argument, particularly from those who do not like the BBC, is: "Leave it all to the private sector and free enterprise. We do not like the BBC, so stuff it and let ITN proceed." The name ITN would be a bit of a mystery in the middle of some desert, for all the distinguished luminaries who broadcast on it. While such a course may save taxpayers' money, it would throw away our best national asset and limit the United Kingdom in this important area to an ultimately commercial approach.
The second argument, which is often raised by independent television companies, is, "It is unfair to create subsidised competition for ITN and the private sector." It is fair to say that the whole existence of the BBC has been and is subsidised. It already competes with ITV and ITN here and all over the world, subsidised or unsubsidised. Surely the overriding argument must be for the maximum use of available credibility in the national interest.
The third argument is, "If there is Government money going, let's have a jolly good tender. Everyone can come galloping along and tender, including the BBC, and then doubtless we in the private sector can outbid it and will have all this lovely Government money which otherwise would go to the BBC." That is somewhat unnecessary, because ITN is already proceeding with its allies in this area and has money to lose from the private sector. We can all clap at that and wish it good luck. That argument also ignores the concept of public service broadcasting for those who most need the news. We have a clear duty in both their and our national interests to transmit news to those who cannot always pay for it.
Some people say, "Let's have a joint effort with ITN and the BBC." That is wholly impracticable. They already compete all over the world, ITN is already proceeding with this and there is the whole question of editorial control and advertising. Such a suggestion is not on; it is a general nightmare.
The final position at the end of the day is that we need a decision soon. We have the BBC and we must use it. This matter is crying out for action and Ministers are placed by us to deliver action. That is why many of my hon. Friends and many hon. Members feel so strongly about this. I do not suggest for a moment that the motives behind Government decisions are anything but altruistic, but if any dogma were to creep into this decision the country would not forgive the Government and many people, rightly, would take a dim view.
Fundamentally, we accept public service broadcasting nationally and it is utterly wrong to prevent it from performing its obvious international role. The BBC has no option but to come to the Government for assistance and it is doing so. It needs to get started in a vital industry of the future. It is about time the Minister recognised the qualifications and arguments and let the BBC get on with it.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The evidence of the BBC external services to the fourth Foreign Affairs Select Committee on cultural diplomacy included a complaint that in the past the external services


had been in receipt of nothing more than avuncular pats-on-the-shoulder commendation during debates in this House. Nobody who reads the speech just made by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) can accuse him of that. I agree with much of what he said. He made a powerful case for the BBC fairly, properly, and in a forthright manner. He laid the question about the future of the BBC TV service fairly and squarely at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office door. I hope that the Minister will provide an answer.
Perhaps we are not addressing the question to the proper Minister, but I hope that we shall have an early decision from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I suspect that, in his heart of hearts, the Minister is sympathetic to the BBC case and has the same hopes and aspirations as the hon. Member for Leominster and that the real sticking point will in reality arrive when the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury and other Treasury Ministers consider the financial implications of the proposal. I hope that will not be the case in this urgent, important decision. If the Treasury uses its usual cost-benefit analysis procedures, it will follow the wrong path in assessing what the external services of the BBC can provide in terms of satellite televised news systems and the work that it already does on radio.
With the forbearance of the House I shall rehearse the arguments for the existing radio external services. I would hate to think that in these times of financial constraints—and I do not deny that they are real—the money that is required for the televised news service should be supplied at the expense of any existing radio programmes produced by the BBC external services. There is an argument for further development of the radio system already provided by the external services and the valuable monitoring services at Caversham and elsewhere.
There may well be 730 million television sets in the world, but there are 1,600 million transistor radio sets and we must not ignore that audience. The needs of the radio service are as urgent as ever, and there is plenty of potential for developing the technical services. I am worried that large parts of the eastern USSR, Latin America and North America still find it difficult to hear the existing radio services broadcast by the BBC. To increase the audibility of such broadcasts will cost money, but it would be money well spent if it was decided to devote resources in that direction.
The number of hours that are broadcast by radio through the external services has decreased since the second world war from 850 to 732 hours per week and the number of countries to which we broadcast has decreased from 45 to 37. Since the war there has been a decrease both in the number of hours of broadcasting each week and in the languages covered. I regret that. The most recent cut, in 1981–82, which reduced the number of languages from 40 to 37, was regrettable and bad in terms of cost effectiveness as it saved only about £1·5 million.
There is a genuine case to be made for starting up a language service to Korea and for extending the Pashto and Tamil services, the Arabic service in north Africa and the Spanish service in Latin America. A real argument can be made on any kind of objective analysis for extending the present external services. Also, there is a real need to extend our present radio and TV communications to Third-world countries in the southern hemisphere.
The Minister will be aware that I have a particular interest in overseas development. Three billion of the

world's population of 5 billion live in Third-world countries. By and large they are poor, a high proportion of them are young people, and most of them believe that they are exploited by the north. That amounts to a potentially explosive situation over the middle to longer term whether regarding international trade, the development of the world economy or in any other area of international relations. The World Service as presently constituted must be extended. We all have stories of the influence of the radio service. The World Service has a proven record, and the hon. Member for Leominster articulated that record eloquently and properly. He described the generous ways in which the BBC considers problems faced by Third-world countries. The news and information services in many of those countries are severely hobbled in many ways by their Governments or by technical constraints.
I know that the Minister is familiar with the arguments about UNESCO, as one of his first duties was to try to sort out the problems. I understand that there arc real problems, but I do not share the Government's views about UNESCO. However, the UNESCO ideas about the new world information order were a symptom of the fact that there is real and rooted prejudice in some of our sister western countries' broadcasting services which are monopolising the airwaves in the Third world. That is not generally a criticism made of the BBC external services which have a reputation for independence and a programming policy that is substantially and positively development oriented.
We must not ignore the work carried out by the external radio services in the Pacific basin, India, Brazil, or any of the other vastly important areas. I am wholeheartedly in favour of the arguments deployed by the hon. Member for Leominister, but I do not want that argument to proceed or that service to develop at the expense of the continuing development of the radio services provided by the BBC's external services.
I want now to consider the television proposal. I fully support the argument that has been deployed, but I do not want to reiterate what has been said. I believe that the proposal is no new development, although in technical terms the hardware and transmitters that will be necessary are new. I consider the argument more in terms of simply maintaining the BBC's position in international broadcasting. There is a great deal of expansion taking place in many different areas within transnational television and satellite broadcasting, as the hon. Member for Leominister has said. If the BBC does not enter and become fully involved in that area or make the most of the unique BBC qualities and experience it possesses, it will be substantially left behind. That would be deeply regrettable.
Rather than considering the television proposal as breaking new ground or as a new revolutionary proposal, I believe that the least the Government can do is to enable the BBC to continue to add its own to this new field and to thrive and prosper. We would expect the USA and USSR to devote resources to broadcasting. However, we must consider the resources that Japan, Germany and other competitors are spending in this area of broadcasting. The public service ethic which the BBC would bring to producing an international televised news service is of fundamental importance. Every day that the decision to proceed is delayed is lost time and that time will be difficult to recover.
I am obliged to say that, having studied the background, the Government give me the impression that they do not appreciate fully the value of the asset available to them in the BBC's external services. If they did, I do not believe that they would hesitate further, but would forthwith approve the scheme for the new BBC external services satellite television. At the estimated cost, in my opinion it is cheap at the price.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: One of the paradoxes of Parliament is that we spend so long debating trivia and so little time debating essentials. Tonight we are discussing the projection of our country throughout the world over the next 20 or 50 years. If we begin to consider all that can flow from that, we can sense how vital the issue is.
Lord Carrington, when he was Foreign Secretary, said:
Let me begin on a note upon which there will be no disagreement in any quarter of the House: that is, the support and admiration of all of us—and of course I include Her Majesty's Government—for the work of the External Services of the BBC. There is nobody who does not recognise the excellence of what they do. Certainly so far as I am concerned. I believe them to be an important arm of Government foreign policy. Indeed, I think we have got to look at the whole of our defence and foreign policy as one, and external broadcasting has a most important part to play in the influence that Britain can exert throughout the world"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 July 1981; Vol. 423, c. 811.]
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I believe that the attitude of Government in recent years towards the BBC external services has been amateurish and appalling. Governments have been like the small boy who is used to going to a filling station and getting a free watch. When he is handed a valuable heirloom, he just does not appreciate the difference. If hon. Members think that that is a bit strong, we must remember what Lord Carrington said on television when he left the Government in 1983:
When I was Foreign Secretary, I was told I had to save money on the overseas service of the BBC. I think that was really totally counter-productive and the money saved was trivial compared to the amount of damage done. I think the time has now come, really, when the Treasury and the Government ought to look at cutting out a function in Government rather than cheese-paring on the things that are essential and have to be done.
It is my case, and it was the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), that the television services must be provided in the interests not simply of the best external broadcasting system in the world, but of our country.
Why is the BBC so good? It is so good partly because throughout the world vast numbers of people speak English, and perhaps even more want to speak English. Secondly, at the time of the second world war, the BBC established a superiority for telling the truth that it carries with it today. That is the difference. Our competitors in eastern Europe and the United States and Canada lack that essential history. That is why, although their broadcasting services are listened to, they are not considered to be in the same category as the BBC's external services.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Integrity.

Mr. Townsend: As my hon. Friend says, it has integrity. That is the key.
I had the privilege last Thursday of watching the ITN service go out from Wells street. That was a superb and very professional half hour and it does the company great credit. I do not believe for a moment that there is no role for the BBC external services as well as ITN.
We are like visitors to a new continent. We see a vast hinterland, the mountains, the rivers and the forests. We are just starting on a vast adventure. Who would like to forecast in 10 years' time, let alone in 100 years' time, the future of world television broadcasting? It would be a crying shame if the BBC, with all its expertise and use of languages, were not leading the way.
I end with another quotation, this time from, of all people, Colonel Gaddafi. He said:
All the Arab radios rave from dawn till noon but nobody listens to them because everyone switches on London.
I want them not only to switch on London and listen, but to switch on London and look.

8 pm

Mr. Norman Buchan: I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I think that is the correct term——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Just call me Madam.

Mr. Buchan: I was trying to avoid that.
I came into the Chamber by accident. One of the problems of this House is that things can go on in the Chamber and we who are working diligently elsewhere hardly know that it is happening. I missed the announcement of this opening debate, but I have come here to congratulate the hon. Member for Leominister (Mr. Temple-Morris) on raising it.
It is an important matter, not least because it occurs at a time when much of the future of broadcasting in general—quite apart from the external services aspect—has been brought into question by the Peacock report, the Green Paper on radio and things that, regrettably, are being said by the Government. That puts into jeopardy much of the best kind of broadcasting that the hon. Member for Leominster described. I am delighted that at least Conservative Back Benchers still use the phrase "public service broadcasting". On that there will be no dispute between us, at any rate in relation to external services.
That is my first reason for supporting the hon. Gentleman. Given the rush to follow the misguided view of the Peacock report, it would be criminal to strip away any other areas of broadcasting that should be undertaken by public service broadcasting, should be undertaken only by such broadcasting and would be best undertaken only by such broadcasting.
Secondly, we are now entering a phase in which diplomacy is not merely of the old-fashioned kind. Among other things, it now consists of trying to have an understanding of our own country best known abroad. However, along with cuts in broadcasting there have been cuts in relation to the British Council. We have never understood the importance of the British Council or the fact that it matters that Ian McKellan and others perform "Coriolanus" on the steps of Acropolis in Athens. That sometimes means more than the diplomacy that is carried out formally.
I question the quotations from Lord Carrington to which the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend)


referred. As I see it, the function of the external services is not necessarily to project the views of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is to do what the BBC has been famous for doing for the past 50 years: to give a reasonably objective—it cannot be any more than that because none of us is totally objective—picture of world events emanating from London.
I remember the horror that occurred two years ago when the Government intervened in the "Real Lives" programme. There was interference by the Government to prevent a programme from being shown. That had a shattering effect in various parts of the world, which had accepted the freedom and independence of the BBC. It was because of that recognition of its freedom and independence that, paradoxically, most of its valuable work was done for Britain. Therefore, I do not accept the argument that it is a projection of the diplomacy of foreign affairs.
The "Real Lives" incident had that serious effect and some of us have had to fight back to restore the position, which was not helped by the Government's intervention over Zircon. Nevertheless, for the past 50 years, of all world broadcasting organisations the BBC has been the most acceptable and recognised throughout the world. It has done a major job on behalf of this country precisely because of its relative objectivity.
My third reason for supporting the BBC is that it is proper that it should have the imprimatur of public service broadcasting, because if anything is in doubt it is the question of over-commercialised, so-called independent, satellite broadcasting. I have seen some of it emanating from America. If one goes to any of the poorer West Indian islands and sees what comes from the American independent broadcasters in the form of news—I think particularly of the all-day news stations—one will get an idea of the cultural shock that it is to those poorer West Indian islands, because it is seen as the normal interpretation of world events as observed through American eyes.
The Government will have to he persuaded. They do not like public service. They think that public expenditure is a bad thing, unless it is for frigates and so on. But in relation to other things, we must deal with a deep, ideological malaise on the Government Front Bench.
I have no doubt that we shall get good words from the Minister. He can do little else but give what I call a "lying in state ceremonial" type of speech and tell us how excellent our external services have been. However, we might not get the final commitment. Normal lying in state ceremonial ends with a commitment when the poor guy goes into a hole, but rarely do we get any commitment or action in respect of public expenditure from the Government Front Bench.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is no part of my job tonight to bury the external services.

Mr. Buchan: I was making a complicated metaphor in relation to any commitment that might be made. Perhaps it was too subtle for the Government Front Bench. At any rate, we would welcome that commitment. I think that my own Front Bench will oppose the report. It had better. We wish the hon. Member for Leominster well and hope that this is the beginning of a successful campaign to have this brought about.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I wish to add a few quick words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). One point that he did not make was that he has had many years of experience in the Inter-Parliamentary Union. He knows the effect of British broadcasting overseas, and he speaks with that sort of knowledge when supporting the spread of the BBC's established performance in radio broadcasting to satellite broadcasting.
My hon. Friend said that the BBC had experience in broadcasting. That statement of fact is unarguable. But equally important is the fact that the BBC has built up a constituency of overseas listeners who are waiting to become BBC overseas viewers. If we do not grab that opportunity, we shall be missing an opportunity for the BBC.
As for budgets, in spite of the increases to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster drew attention, and which I am sure the Under-Secretary will cite, the BBC overseas service has been badly done by in recent years, and it is just as well that that point is made. The small increase in budget for the added influence that we could have had in terms of listenership, audibility and reach throughout the world would have been as nothing compared with, for example, the cost of running embassies in some parts of the world where the presence of the BBC is even more important——

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Or buying a tank.

Mr. Rathbone: Or buying a tank, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) says.
The BBC makes a marvellous contribution to the world in terms of information which is unbiased and trustworthy, and in terms of entertainment which spreads British culture throughout the world. It also does so in terms of learning, not only direct learning—I hope that there will be room for that in a televised BBC overseas service—but indirect learning. I hope that we shall hear the most positive speech that the Under-Secretary has ever given, or is ever likely to give, in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am glad to have a brief opportunity of joining the debate in order to congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), who raised the subject, and also to say again something that I have been saying for a number of years. I think that it deserves to be considered in the context of the proposal to put the BBC overseas services, or at any rate the news services, on to television.
I do not think it would be sufficient for the BBC simply to put out a daily news programme. The news should be seen in the broader context of regular, informed television programmes on the historical, political, commercial and cultural trends that explain the significance of the news. The BBC has already firmly established that practice on the sound wavelengths, and the move to television would be a natural extension of all the excellent work that has been done over many years.
If the facility to provide news programmes were expanded so that there was a full daily service of supporting programmes, the cost could be considered as being spread over 24 hours. We could include other matter


that would also attract the very willing support of the taxpayer. We ought to make a full programme that builds on what we already have, and what the country already does extremely well. The BBC already provides a world language tuition service, which I believe is followed extensively in the far east, Latin America and elsewhere. The BBC is expert in providing that service, which is a well understood and accepted part of what the BBC does. At the same time, in this country we have established the technique of a broadcast university through the Open University. That is a most important extension of the use of television into the educational and higher educational spheres.
What a very good thing it would be if the BBC now proceeded to establish a world university of the air as part of Britain's service to the world. That would only be building on what we are already doing. The cost would be small, but the influence could be of tremendous benefit to mankind. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider the idea seriously at last: I have been recommending it for many years. In the meantime, other countries have been getting the idea and catching up with the BBC. Possibly they will pass it before long in providing that type of service and Britain will once again be left behind.
We owe it to the Third world to carry on the colonial tradition of helping people to understand our civilisation in Britain by giving regular historical, technological, constitutional and other programmes to supplement the sometimes very meagre resources in Third world countries for higher education. Many of our ex-colonial territories, for instance, have educational establishments which we may have founded in the past, or which other colonial countries may have founded in their colonial territories but which are not able to provide a sufficient stimulus in those countries now because they have not the teachers or the facilities to keep up to date with the subjects that they are trying to impart. What a bonus it would provide if the BBC were able to supplement the local facilities by means of a regular, establshed television service to bring all those subjects up to date.
The proposal would, if implemented, be supported by British publishers, who already have a worldwide market for technical books which are widely used in education and are influential in producing engineers, doctors, chemists and others who look to Britain for the ideas that they have already begun to absorb in the course of their education. That is a lifelong influence, which we should not throw away. British publishers of technical books would welcome the opportunity to follow up television courses, regularly given free to humanity, with printed supporting tuition, which would be an extension of the educational service that they are already seeking to provide.
We should not make this service merely an English language service. It should be a European Community project. Films of an educational character, once made, could easily be dubbed into French and Spanish. That would enormously extend the range and utility of the satellites which would continuously transmit news programmes all over the world. How easy it should be, surely, for us to collaborate with other European Community countries and make the concept part of our contribution to the Lome convention. I have often thought that we should be prouder than we are of the Loe

convention, which is one of the most substantial contributions that the European Community has made to the external world since the Treaty of Rome.
Our own former colonial dependencies and associated territories are not the only ones that we have to consider. As members of the European Community, we should consider our responsibilites to the French, the Spanish and the Portuguese speaking territories, who have looked to Europe for education and inspiration in the past. We should be willing to give them 20th and 21st century technical assistance by the modern method of regular television broadcasting.
I was encouraged by the written answer to a question that I tabled recently. On 29 June my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said:
We are aware of the potential opportunities offered by satellite broadcasting. We are considering these carefully. There is currently no provision in the grants in aid of the BBC external services for a world university of the air project. We shall consider whether this could be pursued under EC sponsorship."—[Official Report, 29 June 1987: Vol. 118, c. 38.]
I was encouraged by that reply. Although I should like to think that money was beginning to flow in this direction, at least in an exploratory way, it seems to me that the idea has planted itself in the Foreign Office, and I hope that it will grow into something of great importance.
As a Member of the European Parliament for many years, I have discussed this idea with parliamentary colleagues in Strasbourg. I believe that it would be enthusiastically supported by other EEC countries and that that support would assist the BBC to reach the widest possible audience. I am glad that the Foreign Office is already aware of the matter, but I hope that this debate will stimulate a surge of activity, and will also enable my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to get money from the Treasury to follow this important initiative. I should like it to be carried forward, not just for the sake of Britain's honour, but in the national interest. As a great exporting power, we cannot simply sink out of sight and let the Japanese. the Americans or any others take our place.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominister (Mr. Temple-Morris) for initiating this debate. Until a few weeks ago, I worked for BBC television news. During my time there, I worked on one of the pilot programmes for the television news project, which hon. Members may have seen. Although I worked for the BBC, that does not necessarily mean that I always agree with what it is seeking to push, as the BBC will discover in the future. On this occasion, however, I do agree.
In the brief time available, I want to try to answer a couple of questions. First, do we need a world television news service? I believe that we do. Television will supplant radio more and more throughout the world, largely because of fast-moving technology that will bring satellite television to homes not only in the West, but in the East and the Third world, because of the cost savings brought to national television systems. It will be easier for people to receive television programmes in their homes, beamed from anywhere else in the world.
The reputation of the BBC is paramount throughout the world. In many countries to which I have travelled on


behalf of the BBC it is trusted as an organisation that tells the truth. The BBC is relied on by all other journalists. They listen to the BBC World Service on their short wave radios. Its name is already established. We need to use that name to put forward our views throughout the world.
The name "ITN" can be a bit of a mystery. It is no criticism of ITN to say that occasionally it hijacks the name "BBC" to gain entry to other parts of the world by mumbling, "We're from British television." When the BBC then goes along it is told, "You're already here." I am not surprised that ITN tries that trick. Whatever people may choose to believe, only the BBC could provide a television equivalent to the World Service.
If we were discussing only a new service on television, I should not say that the BBC ought to run it, but running a world service is different. A world service implies reputation. It involves the use of the BBC's resources throughout the world—its correspondents and its contacts with other television broadcasting organisations. That service could be run most cost effectively by the BBC. It has the capacity, and already it has most of the capital equipment. National television stations in other parts of the world will buy BBC products, but they will not buy the products of other organisations.
If the BBC were given the small amount of money that is needed to start up the service, it would be prepared to beam its services to those parts of the world where a profit could not be guaranteed. We need a useful world service. That is why I distinguish it from an ordinary news service. In the foreseeable future, usefulness will be in inverse proportion to the profitability that is likely to be achieved. Usefulness will not be achieved by Superchannel, WTN, CNN, Worldnet or any of the other organisations.
Technically, it is easier to receive pictures in this country from eastern Europe, because of the method of broadcasting and the use of satellites. Were it to be beamed to them by satellite, it would be easier for people in parts of eastern Europe to receive the World Service. That idea could be pursued with profit by the BBC technical experts. The other organisations in this market will never provide a world service that gives the British view, and that advances, through the strength of their advocacy not through what they say, British interests. A very small amount of money, compared with the amount that is already provided for the World Service, would enable the Government and the country to ensure that the money is well spent. If no money is provided, we shall never know whether we made the wrong decision. If we make the wrong decision, we shall pay for it in later years when radio becomes obsolescent or even obsolete.

Mr. George Foulkes: It is a pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see you in the Chair.
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) on raising this issue on the Consolidated Fund Bill and on having come first in the ballot. Usually I have to get up in the early hours of the morning to reply to Consolidated Fund debates. I congratulate him also on his continuing campaign and his persistence on this issue. It has been noticed and commended by many Opposition Members as well as by Conservative Members.
The hon. Gentleman did not know whether he should declare an interest. Nor do I know whether I should do so.

As a spokesman on foreign affairs, I have broadcast from time to time on the World Service and I hope to do so again, particularly if there are pictures.
I have just returned from Washington where I observed and tried to influence a little the Iran-Contra hearings. If any proof were needed of the power of television, the way in which Colonel Oliver North, by his acting ability, coupled with his being somewhat elastic with the truth, has manipulated a relatively pliant and uncritical media shows once again how powerful that media is. It is astonishing that a self-confessed liar, who admits to law breaking, who shares the responsibility for the deaths of hundreds and the misery of thousands in central America, can manipulate the media in America in such a way as to make him into a hero. It was sad and worrying to witness that. It says a good deal about the lack of critical coverage and analysis by the media in the United States. Mr. Rupert Murdoch also understands the power of the visual media. He is now avidly buying up local stations in the United States so as to ensure that a fourth United States network comes under his control.
The kind of service that we are debating is already operating in America. With pictures, Voice of America is powerful. However, it is organised on the basis of cultural imperialism rather than cultural diplomacy. France and other Governments are considering such a service. Hon. Members have already referred to the fact that Britain is being left behind. ITN is already said to be providing such a service on behalf of Britain, through Superchannel news. I am not against that—quite the reverse. I welcome it. A plurality of British output is surely good. However, without being unduly critical of the ITN coverage, it is not tailor made. Its distribution around the world is limited. It does not provide special material and there is only one contact outside Europe, which I understand is Japan.
The BBC service is vital for a number of reasons. I shall refer to three of them. First, I refer to its experience with the World Service. It has experience of 55 years of sound broadcasting; it has 120 million listeners around the world; it still has a worldwide reputation for accuracy and impartiality, despite the efforts of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).
Secondly, I refer to the wide coverage of BBC news. Ten networks around the world have already agreed to take BBC programmes, and 20 more will possibly do so. BBC will have a much wider distribution than ITN.
Thirdly, I refer to the BBC's unrivalled foreign news-gathering service. It has 26 full-time correspondents around the world and 100 overseas stringers. Furthermore, the Foreign Office makes great use of the BBC's well respected monitoring service. The BBC will provide special programmes. It will not just recycle existing material.
Those are three strong reasons—but there are many others—why the Opposition believe that the go-ahead should be given as quickly as possible. The BBC has conducted market research and has established that there is a demand. That demand should be satisfied.
Unlike commercial television, the BBC is unable to put up the risk capital. Therefore, it has asked the Foreign Office for the money that is needed to set up this service. It requires £1·4 million of capital, and the running cost will be £7 million or £8 million. That is not a lot, as Conservative Members have said. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) will know only too well that that figure is equivalent to the cost of two or


three days of fortress Falklands. The Foreign Office is dragging its feet while our competitors are marching on. Will the Minister tell us what is delaying his decision? On 15 January 1987 in an article in The Times the political reporter said:
The Foreign Office …is considering
these proposals,
but has said that there will be no rapid answer.
We are used to that sort of reply from the Foreign Office. However, that was January and it is now July. Time is marching on and we are losing out further. Conservative Members have asked whether it is dogma that is holding this matter up or whether the Government have an aversion towards public service broadcasting. Is it cost-cutting or vindictiveness against the BBC? I hope that those are not the case.
The excellent report of the Select Committee points out how little as a country we spend on cultural diplomacy. That does not merely relate to the BBC, but to the British Council, which is doing an excellent job and which has had its budget cut by 21 per cent. in real terms. Germany spends twice as much as us on cultural diplomacy and France spends three times as much.
The paradox, dilemma and peculiarity of the comparison was pointed out well in an editorial on Friday by Martin Jackson, in "Broadcast". He said:
Curious isn't it, that a Prime Minister so wedded to the trappings of national virility—both in her Common Market and defence policies"—
I shall not comment on either of those policies—
should acquiesce in muting Britain's influence in the world.
That is curious because this is the sort of positive influence that we should be encouraging. Britain's values, which are shared by all hon. Members, of freedom and democracy should be encouraged and spread around the world. We should allow the BBC, with its high reputation, to continue its tradition of independent broadcasting into television. Television news from the BBC that is relayed around the world will be a vital and important part of our cultural diplomacy.
The Opposition wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support the hon. Member for Leominster and every hon. Member who has spoken in this debate. We hope that the Government will agree to give the BBC the necessary funding and we hope that they will do so sooner rather than later.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): It is a great pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be speaking in front of you. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I say that we will be meeting later during the night, because I have some six debates to answer during the next few hours.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) for raising this important topic. I was aware, before I came to the debate, of the high regard that the House has for the BBC external services, and if I did not know I can be under no illusion now. It is right that the future development of such a valuable national asset should be a matter of national interest and national debate.
I listened extremely carefully to the detailed points that have been made by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) made his

latest salvo in what has been a long, hard-fought campaign by him in his true tradition. I am delighted that he found my answer to his question encouraging.
We currently face some important challenges and decisions with regard to external broadcasting. Most of the debate has concentrated on the proposal for a world television service, but that is one of a number of new avenues that have been opened by the rapid advance of broadcasting technology. We have already invested heavily in modern technology to improve the audibility of the BBC's external radio services. All the evidence that we have—this is an important point—suggests that short wave radio will continue for the foreseeable future to be the major international broadcasting medium, which is a point that was made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). Currently there are some 1,600 million receivers worldwide, and that number is likely to continue to grow.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Eggar: I shall not give way, because I have a lot to get through.
It is not only the technology that changes, because the needs of the BBC's international audience develop in tune with sociological and political changes in the countries in which the people live and to which the programmes are broadcast. A particular case in point is our broadcasts to the Soviet Union. We welcome the decision to cease jamming the BBC's broadcasts, and we hope and expect that this decision will be implemented consistently, although it is a pity that it has not been extended to the BBC's Polish service. Unhindered access to a large Soviet audience is a new and qualitatively different challenge for the external services, with far-reaching implications for the kind of programmes and the hours and times at which they are broadcast. It is true that in the developing world audiences' needs change rapidly as education and development progresses. The activities of other broadcasters must be taken into account. I am thinking, for example, of the massive increase in commercial broadcasting in some parts of the world.
The Government are in no doubt that the BBC external services are a precious resource that brings great benefits to Britain. They enjoy a high international reputation for the quality, accuracy and impartiality of their broadcasting. That can only enhance Britain's image. In their news coverage it is the task of the external services to broadcast a balanced British view of national and international developments, including an accurate and effective representation of British life. In that they enjoy editorial independence.
It is the Government's task, in close co-operation with the BBC, to ensure that the funds that we invest in external broadcasting are used to maximum effect. We must ensure value for money in the technology that we employ. We must discuss how to respond with the necessary flexibility to the challenges of a rapidly changing world. We therefore maintain a close and continuing dialogue with the BBC external services to set the geographical priorities for broadcasting and the hours broadcast in each language. In doing this we must consider the requirements of the BBC external services within the framework of the total Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget and to assess them against overall foreign policy priorities. We bear the responsibility for ensuring that the taxpayer's


money is spent economically, efficiently and effectively. That is why we believe that it is right for the National Audit Office to have access to the external services to carry out its examinations. Following the Perry report, we attach considerable importance to securing agreement on the revised financial memorandum, which had been proposed by that report.
A glance at the figures for the funding of the BBC external services shows why we take this responsibility so seriously. The BBC's present broadcasting output stands at over 732 hours per week, which is the highest level since the 1950s. To achieve this level we have increased grants-in-aid in real terms by over 50 per cent. in the past eight years. About half of this has gone to support increases in running costs. The remainder has funded a programme of capital expenditure, which was begun in 1981, to improve audibility. In 1979–80 the BBC external services accounted for 12 per cent. of the total Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic wing expenditure. The figure is now 17 per cent.
I hope that that figure, when put in context, gives an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) who cast aspersions on the way in which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office spends money on the BBC in contra-distinction to our true diplomatic effort and our embassies. We must take an overall view, and it is fair to say that the BBC external services have done well over the past five years, in what has been a time of constrained spending.

Mr. Buchan: Why was that policy necessary?

Mr. Eggar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am trying to discuss world television news. We are studying the whole matter of Government involvement. It is a deceptively simply proposition which raises a number of extremely difficult issues. Broadcasting by satellite is neither simple nor inexpensive. It is estimated to be 10 times as expensive as broadcasting by traditional means.
The broadcasting of television programmes is not merely a logical extension of radio broadcasting. We need, for instance, in the context of television broadcasting, to examine again the audiences whom we are trying to reach and how we shall reach them. In many areas of the developing world radio is likely to remain the sole means of communication for the foreseeable future. I need hardly say, in addition, that in closed societies, especially in the Eastern bloc, which are a priority for external broadcasting, it is no simple matter for them to acquire, erect and use a satellite television receiving dish. It is, of course, far easier for authorities to spot a dish than to spot a short-wave radio receiver.
Furthermore, the technology is changing almost from day to day. We must be sure that any investment will be a sound use of taxpayers' money. That is why we are conducting a thorough analysis of all the issues raised by satellite broadcasting. We hope to consider the whole proposal and the Government's role in it from production of a programme to delivery to the potential audience.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: When will we know?

Mr. Eggar: We are already engaged in exploratory discussions with the BBC and others interested in this idea. Partly as a result of those discussions the BBC is, I understand, renewing and changing its original proposals. I hope to be able to study its revised plan shortly. I have a feeling, from listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster, that he may know rather more about the proposal that will soon land on my desk than I do.
We should not, of course, ignore the fact that British broadcasters are already present on the international scene. Many hon. Members have referred to the ITN's World News, which is transmitted by Superchannel and is available to a potential audience of more than 8 million homes in 15 European countries. It is available also in hotels and by individual satellite receiving dishes in a number of other countries. Furthermore, I understand that, since the beginning of this month, it is available in Japan. I am told that there are other possible opportunities.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister answer one question? He said in a fairly waffly comment that the plan would be considered "shortly"—that famous ministerial word. Both sides of the House are anxious to know when he expects to announce a decision about the request, whether it is revised or not, by the BBC for financial assistance. When does the hon. Gentleman expect that announcement to be made?

Mr. Eggar: Discussions have been continuing since we received the first BBC proposal in November 1986. I understand that the BBC is shortly to send me a further revised proposal. I do not know when it will arrive. I assure hon. Members that as soon as it arrives we will be able to continue our evaluation of the various options open. I am not in a position to give a definite time for announcing a decision, because I am not even aware of the precise proposal that the BBC, and other interested bodies—that is an important addition—will put forward.
The Government are faced with an important and extremely complex decision. It involves a number of separate issues, especially the need to identify audiences and to ensure that any product that is in any way assisted by public money can reach the appropriate audience, otherwise it simply is not justifiable to put in public money at the first stage. For instance, we must consider how people can receive a product which is in any way financed by British taxpayers' money if they do not have access to a satellite dish. We must know exactly what the markets are and decide whether we can justify any kind of public subsidy to transmit that product into the homes in those areas. I am unwilling to be pinned down to a time, but I assure hon. Members that this issue is receiving considerable attention and priority. It will continue to do so. I look forward to receiving the BBC's further proposals.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Finance

Mr. Richard Caborn: It is nice to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will continue to show the fairness that we saw when you were a Committee Chairman, that you will allow Back Benchers to intervene from time to time and that you will control Front Benchers. I thank you also for allowing a three-hour debate on the important subject of local government finance. The number of applications for this debate clearly shows the interest and concern of many hon. Members.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Where are they?

Mr. Caborn: I have no doubt that they will come in from the Tea Room and other places in the Palace in the not-too-distant future.
The concern about this subject can be broken down into three main aspects. The first is the difficulty faced by many local authorities in meeting their daily commitments on behalf of the communities they represent, especially in the main conurbations where many of the problems of housing, social services, education and deprivation are evident and, some would say, reaching crisis proportions. Local government and public representatives have to meet and cope with those problems in difficult financial circumstances.
The second matter concerns the introduction of the new community charge, which was clearly outlined in the Gracious Speech only a few days ago. No doubt many hon. Members will try to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to speak in more detail on that than I have time to do.
The third aspect is the way in which, over the past eight years, the Government have manipulated the financial arrangements, along with other local government legislation, in a manner which is best described in the words of the Financial Times:
the Government have no coherent strategy or philosophy for the future of Local Government in Britain.
At worst, it can be called deliberate financial strangulation and drip-feeding of poison into local government, led by the Government Front Bench, aided and abetted by the gutter press, especially the tabloids. They have attacked local government with unfounded allegations, although facts never stood in the way of a good story in the tabloids. Unfortunately, the worst venom has been reserved for our local authorities. The present financial constraints do not even allow many local authorities to carry out their minimum obligations. About 42 Bills passed in the last few Sessions tried to strangle local authorities.
That attitude forced even the Audit Commission to conclude
the position of Local Government in many of the areas has become impossible.
Many people inside and outside the House are asking: is the problem just hatred of local government, as fostered by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment, or is it that the impossibility to which the Audit Commission referred is deliberately designed to limit the role of local government and place that limited role to the Government's advantage or to create the conditions for local government's abolition?
Tragically, over the past eight years, democratic trade union rights have been removed and a tier of local

government abolished. We must question the conditions imposed by the Government, particularly on local authority finance. Are the Government trying eventually to abolish or greatly curtail local authority control? Are they trying to build the centralised administration that many of us fear? The Gracious Speech implied that education could become far more centralised. I suggest that the Government are taking us towards that type of administration. That was underlined clearly in an article in the Sunday Telegraph on 5 July:
Meanwhile, Mrs. Thatcher has ordered ministers to take the offensive over the controversial community charge and over the inner city programme. The aim will be to lay the blame for squalid housing and urban deprivation at the door of the Left-wing councils which, ministers say, care more about extremist politics than people.
That is not the idea that is even now emanating from the Palace. The Palace is trying to bring communities together. However, it is clear that, to the Prime Minister, confrontation with local government is the order of the day. During the election campaign. the Prime Minister declared that she intended her third term to see the removal of Socialism from the face of the United Kingdom. Her vindictive approach to local government could be seen in that context. She wants to limit the role of local authorities because she knows of the strong role that Socialism maintains in our major inner-city areas in the north. She sees local authorities as a legitimate target.
It is true that the Government are now putting forward proposals to assist the inner-city areas. If they are not trying completely to resurrect the industrial base, at least the Government are attempting to rebuild the inner cities and provide safety valves to alleviate what could be a major problem in the future. However, all the proposals are bypassing democratically elected local councils and disregarding the views of people who have spent years in the localities, who have been put where they are by the ballot box and who know the feelings of the people they represent. Unfortunately, the Government want to try to bypass the democratic process.
The Government's cynical approach to local government has not gone down particularly well with Conservative Back Benchers. That was highlighted by the statement of the previous Leader of the House, who was quoted in an exclusive interview in the Sunday Telegraph on 5 July as saying that the Prime Minister now acted more like Stalin. I think she could probably teach the Soviet Union a lot about centralism.
Last Friday, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said, in reply to the remarks of one of his hon. Friends who was rather enthusiastic about the removal of Socialism from the face of the United Kingdom:
We cannot say that our mission in history is to eliminate Socialism; that is a function of the will of the people.
He said that people would only reach the same conclusion as the Conservative party if
we produce attractive policies that appeal to the whole electorate. Our national share of the vote did not increase last time; it fell slightly. The workings of the electoral system gave us another big majority in the House, but we know that people do not agree with our policies. We must persuade them. We cannot simply bash them on the head and insist that they accept our policies."—[Official Report, 10 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 654.]
Unfortunately, we are getting used to the style of government that bashes people on the head. However, many Conservative Back Benchers are even now


challenging that type of Government, and the dogma of the Government Front Bench, particularly towards local government, is becoming unacceptable to them.
What is the case against the Government's financial manipulation during the past eight years? We have a whole new jargon written into local government vocabulary, which includes financial targets, rate capping, precepts and the rest. Ironically, the constraints implicit in that vocabulary have not applied to central Government. Between 1980–1981 and 1985–1986, central Government expenditure increased by 51 per cent., while local authority spend over the same period increased by 32 per cent. That clearly shows that the criteria apply to local government but not to central Government.
Since the Government took power in 1979, we have seen two major developments in local government finance. As I said, there has been an increase of some 32 per cent. overall since 1980–81, but capital expenditure has gone down by a staggering 44 per cent. in real terms. Current expenditure is expected to remain virtually static in real terms over the rest of the planned period to the 1990s, but capital expenditure is expected to continue to fall over the same period. Current expenditure is rising by an average of 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. per annum in real terms and net capital spending is Calling by 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. per year in real terms.
A closer look at the details of local authority current expenditure in England shows that the Government have succeeded in changing the distribution of that spend. Spending on social security, housing benefits and law and order are now taking a significantly larger share of spending than in 1979–80. Education, the local environment, transport and housing consume a much smaller proportion of the total than in 1979–80.
The cut in capital expenditure goes to the heart of the problems of our inner cities. If it is not defused, the time bomb planted in our inner cities over the past eight years could reverberate well beyond those areas. It is rather ironic that, while we have been called upon to improve our infrastructure—in transport, energy and education—central Government have been cutting the very means that would make it possible.
I shall take Sheffield as an example to illustrate what I have said. In 1981–82 the housing capital account had an allocation of £19·2 million; in 1987–88 the allocation is £17·3 million—a reduction of over 10 per cent. That is before allowances have been made for inflation. The increase in the retail price index over that period was 36·6 per cent. For education, capital expenditure was £3·2 million in 1981–82, which has now been reduced to £2·6 million. That comes after a report at the end of a two-year study conducted by Her Majesty's inspectors, which came out in favour of Sheffield education authority's services, expenditure and curriculum, and gave a glowing report. We had favourable press releases and comment even from the Department of Education and Science. But although the report said that we managed our financial affairs to the benefit of the pupils and the service in general, there has been a 20 per cent. cut during that period—again before allowing for inflation.
Community services have also borne the brunt of the cuts, especially in the inner cities. There is an average of 30 per cent. unemployment in Sheffield, Central and of about 50 per cent. in the inner city. But our community services budget has been cut by about 40 per cent., again before taking inflation into consideration. Some may

argue that revenue expenditure has increased. In 1981–82, 51 per cent. of Sheffield city council's expenditure was financed through central Government grants—specific or supplementary grants and the block grant. For 1987–88, the proportion has fallen to 48 per cent. The city council's expenditure increased in cash terms by 36 per cent. between 1981–82 and 1987–88, because the city council took over responsibility for the metropolitan county council services in 1986–87. That expenditure increased to 52 per cent., and the ratepayers are having to foot the bill for the reduction in the percentage that used to come from central Government.
The Secretary of State's ignorance was shown on 1 July, when he attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). He said:
There can never be enough public money to do everything through municipal ownership, nationalisation and services provided by highly unionised public sector services, It is inherently inefficient, and, worse, the necessary level of rates drives businesses and business men alike away."—[Official Report, 1 July 1987; Vol. 118, c. 534.]
I do not know where the Secretary of State got his brief from, or whether he occasionally goes off his brief, but we should consider the spend on the private sector in Sheffield in 1984–85. Sheffield's total budget for that year was £262 million. Of that, slightly less than £100 million—38 per cent.—was spent in the private sector or on agencies outside the control of the local authority. The false picture has been painted that all the revenue that goes to a local authority is designated within that authority. That is totally untrue. The private sector, especially builders and architects, have said that the cuts experienced during the past eight years and the strangulation of local government have had a major impact not only on the viability of their businesses but on their survival. The Secretary of State should know better than to make such statements.
The Government, aided and abetted by the gutter press, in their attempt to limit the role of local authorities, have painted a picture of irresponsible councillors of all parties. They have said that local government does not serve the community, but then they come up with the poll tax. On 29 June this year, the Secretary of State said that the rates bill for the average household in Sheffield will increase from £371 to £496—an increase of 33·7 per cent. The Minister will know that that is only half the story. Much of the increase will fall on those who can least afford it. If the Bills introducing the poll tax go through the House—they may be opposed by some senior Conservative Members—they will represent another blow to those who can least afford it.
If the Government continue to attack under-resourced local government, they will be in breach of the consensus that has been accepted for many years: that local people who are democratically elected should have a say in how the money is spent. Crude though it may be, we have used the rating system for the redistribution of wealth generally. More than that, we have used it to develop the infrastructure of the more deprived areas so that we can attract industry. That consensus has now clearly been broken. Many Conservative Members and outside agencies, in documents such as "Faith in the City", have said——

Mr. Tony Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Caborn.: I will give way in a moment.
It has been pointed out in documents drawn up by many institutions outside the House that we are building that time bomb. Unless the Government start taking note of what people in various localities are saying, not only will they break that consensus but there will be major problems for the inner cities.

Mr. Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman say a word about the unified business rate and how that will affect Sheffield? Will it not reduce the charge to businesses substantially and is not unemployment the major problem facing Sheffield? Would not a reduction in overheads of businesses be welcome to Sheffield?

Mr. Caborn: Obviously a reduction in charges would be of some assistance to any business. It depends how one accepts responsibility within a community. When the Government destroyed the cheap fares policy that was supposed to be a massive burden on ratepayers, the removal of that redistribution of wealth fell heavily upon industry. Where the net reduction in the family budget was about £10, people put in for wage increases to combat it.
If the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) speaks to business men in the centre of Sheffield who have lost a tremendous amount of business because people cannot afford to travel there, he will find that business activity has reduced considerably. If he talks to industrialists about high interest rates, the high value of the pound and energy costs over the eight years of the Government, he will find that rates pale into insignificance in terms of a vibrant manufacturing base in the city of Sheffield. Any industrialist will tell him that they will always moan about the rates, but that the real cause of the decimation of the industrial base is clearly the economic policy that has been pursued by the Government, which has strangled that manufacturing base with high interest rates, an overvalued pound and energy costs.
I hope that the Government will take on board what has been said not just by Opposition Members but by Conservative Members—that if they do not start treating local government in a manner more befitting the type of civilised society in which we live, they will reap the consequences.

Mr. Michael Fallon: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) for giving us such an early opportunity to debate local government finance. I suspect that it will not be the last opportunity and that we shall debate the subject again and again over the next few months. If we continue to do so in the atmosphere of calm authority that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, bring to our proceedings, we shall all he very grateful.
No new tax or charge will be popular. It is no surprise, therefore, that the Opposition have latched on to the proposed local government finance reforms as a key part of their political attack on the Government. Nor is it any surprise that some of my hon. Friends have expressed, and may express during this debate, occasional reservations about some of the details of the reforms that have been proposed. Many criticisms have been made and will be made about the community charge. Almost all of the criticisms that I have heard so far can be answered.
First, it has been suggested that the new community charge is not to be based on the ability to pay. Of course, rates were not based on the ability to pay and many of those who will benefit under the community charge—single people, pensioners and single-parent families—were unable, in many cases, to pay a high rates burden but will be able to afford the lower sum that the community charge represents and will be grateful for the reduction.
Secondly, it is suggested that the community charge will benefit the better off. That seems a rather curious argument. The community charge applies to working couples on good salaries and it may well be that in certain areas—we could call this the Dulwich argument—their community charge, if two of them are earning, will be less than their existing rate demand or less than that of others who are not in such fortunate circumstances, who are not earning as much, but who happen to be living in the same borough. However, it is a false argument. The community charge will account for only 25 per cent. of local government finance. Another 25 per cent. will come from the business rate, but, more importantly, the remaining 50 per cent. will continue to come from central Government. Those who keep saying that the community charge will help the better off have not taken that on board. That is a crucial point. Those who pay higher rates of income tax will be making their contribution to that 50 per cent. of local government finance. In fact, they will be paying twice as much towards local government in their income tax as they will through the community charge.
The Dulwich argument is not simply false but is rather curious coming from the Opposition. They are saying that some people who are better off will be paying a little more towards their public services. Where have we heard that before? We heard that from the Labour party throughout the election campaign. The Labour party was appealing to the sense of community and sense of obligation among those who were better equipped to pay. I find it rather odd that the Labour Members should now style themselves as the defenders of the prosperous bourgeoisie, and are concerned that its pockets should not be pinched further by the community charge when they were suggesting just a month and a half ago that those same people would be quite happy to pay a little more. Indeed, some of the people who are now complaining about the community charge are the very people who told us two months ago, perhaps on the doorstep, that they did not need the tax cuts that the Chancellor provided in his March Budget. They said that they did not need the extra £100 or £200 a year, but they are now squealing across the suburbs and the home counties at the prospect of paying an extra £50 in a year through the community charge.
The third criticism that I do not understand is that the community charge will not help the north. It is true that in some areas of the north, particularly in Yorkshire and the north-west that happen to have that fatal combination of historically low rateable values and high spending Labour councils, the individual may be paying more through the community charge than he pays at present in rates. However, that ignores the other central reform in our proposals, the reform of the non-domestic rate and the introduction of the national non-domestic rate. Of course, that would lead to substantial reductions in the business rates burden. I can speak only from the point of view of my own region. It is already estimated that business rates will fall by about 40 per cent. in places such as Newcastle, Middlesbrough and other towns in the north-east.
It is also calculated that the total benefit to the north—even as the Opposition style their geographic north—will be about £700 million a year. That is a considerable sum. It is three times what the Government are spending on their regional aid budget at the moment, and it should not be ignored by anybody who believes in the urgent necessity of regenerating the economy of the north.
Fourthly, it was suggested by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central, who introduced the debate and has already fled from the Chamber, that somehow the reform is centralist and that it will undermine local democracy. That is one of the weaker arguments to be mounted against the community charge. I suspect that, as time goes on and we debate the proposal, we shall hear less of such an argument. The strongest argument for the community charge is that it will strengthen local accountability because it will directly improve the responsibility of local government.
Of course, if council rates continue to be high until the introduction of the community charge, and if councils continue to be high spenders and ignore central Government advice on spending targets, as they have done for four or five years, the community charge may be high. Councils may find that electors will pay even more than they pay at the moment. But it will not be for the Government or for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make the decision. The decision to enforce a higher community charge will be for local councils. They will have to account for it in due time. Indeed, if they consistently impose a community charge that is higher than the national average, it will be transparent to their local electors in a way in which present rate levels, caught up in the complexity of grant-related expenditure—GRE and all the other synonyms of local government finance which have baffled the House for the past four or five years—are not. For high spending local authorities, the logic of the community charge is absolute, and for them there will be no hiding place. Fifthly, I cannot accept the criticism that the community charge may be unfair. No system of local government could be more unfair than our present rating system. No account is taken of ability to pay, of the extent to which people use local services, or of the need to involve a much larger number of people in local democracy. No account is taken of the need to redress a situation in which 35 million people use local services but 20 million people do not pay rates. We must remove the absurdity in some central urban areas such as in Manchester, where only one in four adults pay any rates. That is not only absurd in principle but pretty tough on the man who pays rates.
I have already said that I believe that almost all criticisms of the community charge that I have heard can be answered. Indeed, I have no doubt that those criticisms will be answered admirably and efficiently by my hon. Friend the Minister when he replies.
However, I have heard one criticism from outside the House to which I believe my hon. Friend should address himself if he has time. The criticism is that this sensible reform of local government finance is not, at the moment, being linked to any reform of local government structure. My hon. Friend should bear in mind the consequences of the reform that he will be promoting. Once we have a local government that is locally responsible and truly accountable to its electors, I believe that it will make no sense to continue with the two-tier structure of local government. We should reconsider, as recommended years

ago by Redcliffe-Maud, single-tier, all-purpose authorities responding to local demand in a much more effective way than at present.
Such is my single note of reservation. I hope that my hon. Friend can satisfy my question. There will be many more debates on this subject. I hope that when criticisms are made of the community charge they will be better founded in fact and based on a better grasp of what the Government are seeking to do.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I hope that it will not be thought presumptious or unduly prococious of the part of a maiden speaker to offer you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my congratulations on your new appointment. May I express the wish of those on the Liberal Benches that you enjoy your appointment and occupy the Chair for a long time to come.
I am grateful for the opportunity afforded to me to make a maiden speech in this House. I do so attended with all the apprehensions to which maiden speakers are traditionally subject. In the spirit of that tradition, I wish to begin by referring to my predecessor, Barry Henderson.
Barry Henderson served the constituency of Fife, North-East sincerely and conscientiously during the time he was its Member of Parliament. To me he was a courteous opponent, and he was gracious and generous in defeat. However, none of those qualities, admirable in themselves, was sufficient protection against the condemnation by the electors of Fife, North-East of the party of which he was such a loyal supporter. Some of the condemnation was especially reserved for the community charge, or the poll tax as it is colloquially described north of the border.
I trust that we on the Liberal Benches may be forgiven some small self-indulgence from the realisation that the constituency that returned Mr. Asquith for so many years has once more returned a Liberal Member of Parliament.
The House will be aware that within my constituency lies Scotland's oldest university, founded in 1411. That university has a long noble tradition of scholarship in the arts and sciences, in teaching and research. The maintenance of that tradition is becoming increasingly difficult in the present climate. Research, in particular, is an issue of considerable controversy within that university. It is universally recognised within the academic community that research for its intrinsic merit is an essential feature of a vigorous and healthy university. It must surely be accepted that scholarship should not lightly be sacrificed to commercialism. However, that is an inevitable consequence of Government policies towards universities.
Since 1980, St. Andrew's university has suffered a cut of 21 per cent. in real terms in University Grants Committee funding. It has survived only by the skilful management of its investments and by a robust programme of recruiting foreign students who pay full fees. Obviously, that programme has been acompanied by a reduction in opportunity for students from the United Kingdom. Indeed, it may not be long before that institution is staring deficit in the face. One may think that that is hardly conducive to the role that is required of it during the last part of the 20th century.
This debate is concerned with local government finance. Anyone who listens to those who are involved in local government on a day-to-day basis will readily accept


that many of the difficulties that local government faces arise from the continuing reduction in central Government's support for local government. In Fife, North-East, for example, if the housing support grant stood today at the same level as in 1979, the rents for council houses would be £6 per week less. Until that reduction in central Government support is halted, the pressure on local authorities will continue to be acute and damaging. To suggest, as appears to have been suggested in the House a few moments ago, that the community charge will bring a solution to the many problems of local government financing seems to ignore the fact that the community charge, of itself, will create its own difficulties.
Of course, it is accepted that rates are universally discredited, although from time to time one feels that, as a means of raising local taxation, rates still enjoy some support from Labour Members. The replacement of one regressive tax by another is no solution. The community charge, or the poll tax, must be regressive and unfair; otherwise there would not be any need for rebates. If it were essentially a fair charge, there would not be any necessity to make allowances for those whose personal circumstances were such as to make them unable to pay. A tax that will benefit mostly those who earn over £350 per week is self-evidently unfair.
We argue, as we have argued for a long time, that the only fair system of raising local taxation is by a local income tax based on the ability to pay. If ability to pay is recognised as the proper measure for raising taxation on a national, United Kingdom-wide basis, why is it denied that the same basis should be applied to local taxation?
If the Government were to undertake to restore the level of central Government support to what it was in 1979 and to introduce a local income tax along the lines that we have argued, real progress could be made in the financing of local government. I look for that, but so far I have been disappointed.

Mr. Tony Baldry: It gives me great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who spoke with great clarity and coherence and who, I am sure, will make many more speeches in the House. I understand that he is an advocate, and I welcome him to the small band of lawyers in the House. As his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who is seated on his left, and who is a leading member of the all-party group of barristers, will inform him, we are a much-misunderstood, misrepresented and maligned group of individuals.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman also as a representative of, among other institutions, St. Andrew's university. Some of my hon. Friends have, for a number of years, been trying to contain the influence of St. Andrew's university on the thinking of the Conservative party, but with not as much success as some of us would have liked. Therefore, for many reasons, we welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman into the House and look forward to hearing from him on future occasions.
I should like to make several straightforward points about the rating system and local government finance. First—this is an important point—no one will lament the passing of the present domestic rating system. It is an

anachronistic system, which owes much to the old concept of the window tax and which is riddled with anomalies and unfairness. An elderly widow who is a pensioner may well, for example, be liable to pay exactly the same rates as her neighbours, where perhaps both husband and wife go out to work. That cannot be a fair system.
The present rating system gives every incentive to local councils, such as Oxfordshire, to be profligate and to write cheques on other people's bank accounts because on average only half of those who can vote must foot the bill for any extra spending. The present rating system gives no real incentive to local councils to be prudent as they have little accountability to those whose money they spend, often with gay abandon. Therefore, the arguments against the present rating system are many.
Secondly, if any hon. Member has any lingering support for the present rating system rather than opting for something new, such lingering support should evaporate when one considers the prospect of revaluation. The point which has not been taken on board by nearly enough people is that we could not carry on with the existing system without a revaluation, since the last was in 1973 and revaluation is part and parcel of the existing system.
In Scotland, only five years after the previous revaluation, the rateable value of an ordinary house increased from £171 to £726 and the rateable value of a modest flat increased from £405 to an incredible £1,289. Imagine what revaluation in England and Wales after 14 years would do. Inevitably, it would lead to serious disruption for many present ratepayers. Therefore, I do not believe that the present system has any friends or supporters either on the Opposition Benches or on these Benches.
Time and again during the general election campaign that was made clear on the doorsteps by many people who asked that at last the Conservatives should redeem their pledge to reform the rating system. Clearly the electors understood what the Conservatives were proposing in our manifesto which stated that we would
legislate in the first session of the new Parliament … to replace rates with a fairer Community Charge.
Thirdly, the community charge has several clear advantages. It is straightforward; nearly every adult over 18 will be liable to pay an equal share; and there will be protection for weaker, poorer members of the community. Furthermore, the community charge will ensure both that those who spend the money will again be accountable to those who provide much of the money that is spent and that business, commerce and industry will no longer be prey to the unreasonable demands of unreasonable councils. It is an inherently fairer system as 69 per cent. of single pensioners and 83 per cent. of one-parent families will be better off.
Naturally, some critics will try to dream up as many obstacles and difficulties as possible, and I have no doubt that the difficulties they will seek to raise during the passage of the legislation will be legion, but the burden of proof is undoubtedly on them. If they do not believe that the present rating system is sustainable and they are opposed to the community charge, the burden of proof is clearly on them to come up with an alternative which combines fairness and accountablility by councillors to those who provide the money they spend.
So far, during the debate on the Gracious Speech and in press comments on the reform of the rating system, we


have not seen a shadow of a scintilla of any suggestion from any opponents to the community charge of any alternatives that they could devise. They will not be able to argue with any conviction that the community charge will weaken local democracy; it does exactly the reverse, because it strengthens local democracy by making those elected directly responsible to those who pay. After at least 15 years of debate and argument over the present iniquitous rating system, the Government have at last come up with a real viable alternative.
Fourthly, it is important that this point should be understood clearly by everyone—under the community charge, people living in counties such as Oxfordshire will pay more than they need to under the new system only if the county council refuses to cut spending. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recently released figures that reflect what the position would have been if a community charge had been introduced this year instead of rates. The figures show that households in Oxfordshire with more than two people would end up paying more under the community charge system than under the rates system, but only—this point has been made time and time again—because of overspending and profligate spending by the county council. If the county council cut spending, the same household with the identical figures would pay £27 a year less under the new community charge than under the rates system.
We must get the message home to people that the figures clearly show that it is important that high-spending authorities such as Oxfordshire should start to identify sensible economies. It is also important that those of us who live in counties such as Oxfordshire should insist that such economies are made. There will be a real incentive for all of us living in Oxfordshire to insist that such counties begin to behave prudently and sensibly and stop writing cheques on other people's bank accounts. Nearly every adult in Oxfordshire will have a vested, direct and identifiable interest in ensuring that the county is prudent.
There are four simple points. First, the present rating system is discredited. Secondly, the community charge will be much fairer. Thirdly, the burden of proof is on those who oppose the community charge to come forward with another system, and we have seen none of that to date. Finally, under the community charge many people have the potential to be better off, but only if local authorities try to contain their spending and do not continue to pursue profligate spending policies, spending money on other people's bank accounts.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this important debate. The debate affects all of my constituents who will be interested to learn the views of Conservative Members who have said that rich people tend not to live in large houses and poor people tend not to live in small houses. That means that under the present system they believe that things are inequitable.
I want to pay tribute to Ray Ellis, the former Member for Derbyshire, North-East. Ray would have been interested to be involved in this debate. He was a former councillor in south Yorkshire, and that county council has since been abolished. He served in this House for eight years and during that period he
faced strong Government

opposition. When I took over from Ray Ellis, I had hoped to be in an easier position, but I face the same level of strength on the Government Benches.
The Government must realise that the election result has not given them a mandate to ride roughshod over people's feelings. Strong feelings were expressed across both sides of the political divide during the election campaign and on no point were feelings running stronger than on the poll tax.
Ray Ellis was the fifth miner to represent Derbyshire, North-East, an area which has suffered boundary changes. The first miner was a Lib-Lab, elected in 1907, who joined the Labour party in 1910. For 68 years of the intervening 80 years the constituency was served by five mining Members from Derbyshire. Among them was Tom Swain, who was well known in the House and was a fighter on behalf of his constituents in more ways than one. I have broken that tradition in that I am not a miner, but I take over the commitment to fight on behalf of mining in my constituency.
Some mining is still left in north-east Derbyshire. There are three pits, one of which is at High Moor, where Ray Ellis was for a number of years an extremely effective union branch secretary with a sound reputation for negotiating on behalf of his members. The other two pits are at Renishaw Park and Ireland. Ireland is on the boundary of north-east Derbyshire and Chesterfield and is currently the subject of closure plans by the NCB.
The NCB has also produced a hit-list of further pits in the area, such as Markham, Bolsover, and Warsop. Renishaw Park also appears on that list. Such closures would seriously affect the future employment prospects of people in my constituency.
In the three constituencies of Bolsover, Derbyshire. North-East and Chesterfield, mining is still the leading employer, partly because of the growth in unemployment within the area. Even so, the mining industry has been contracting, although jobs have been contracting at a faster rate. It can therefore be seen that mining still has a prominence in the constituency, and it is my intention to argue on its behalf and for the maintenance of the pits in those areas, particularly as they all have workable coal reserves.
I shall also defend the mining industry because of my own background. My father, relatives and my wife's father were miners. During the past 21 years I have taught both Derbyshire and Yorkshire miners, although they have probably taught me much more. In fact, three Members of this House attended classes that I have taught, and they, too, are now teaching me much more than I ever taught them.
I probably learnt more about miners' interests during the academic year 1984–85. During that time I taught two classes of Yorkshire miners, who attended rigorously despite the fact that it was the most terrifying period that they had ever gone through. Indeed, one of those miners was later killed when he returned to his pit.
My election to this House indicates that many changes are taking place in north-east Derbyshire. It is no longer an area pockmarked with pits, as it was at one time. It now contains a commuter element which centres on Sheffield and Chesterfield, of which I was a part as a teacher. Derbyshire, North-East is a socially and politically divided constituency, although not on traditional north-south lines. There is a classic east-west divide, with a strong Labour feeling in the east and a strong Conservative


feeling in the west. Both views should be taken account of by the Government, because to some extent it is a replica of what we now find generally throughout the country. A wise Government do not ride roughshod over differing attitudes and opinions, but seek to reconcile such conflicting interests and attitudes.
The Government's poll tax is a striking example of the problem that now exists, because in north-east Derbyshire the east-enders of the constituency will be expected to subsidise the west-enders, and that will cause uproar.
The Government are seemingly intent on creating scenarios that repeat those that we have seen in the past in Derbyshire, North-East. The eastern part of my constituency includes Clay Cross; in the western part are commuter areas such as Dronfield and Wingerworth. Clay Cross fought the Housing Finance Act 1972 for reasons similar to those that people have put forward against the poll tax. The Housing Finance Act provided for people's rents to be increased to pay for subsidies for their neighbours, and to reduce the rate burden and generally to transfer funds to the Exchequer. The poorer people were expected to subsidise the richer. But that was mild in comparison to measures instigated by the Government since and in the poll tax that is now on the cards, including reduction in rate support grant, controls being operated centrally, and the destruction of the ability and right of people to provide and act for themselves and to control things democratically. Clay Cross and the other areas in Derbyshire, North-East are unlikely to be willing to sit back gently and allow that to occur.
Financial problems in the community affect such areas as Dronfield, which, like many western areas, also has its working-class wards. In one of those wards there is a problem that requires Government finance and assistance. There is a fire raging underground near an industrial estate at Callywhite lane in Dronfield. We are seeking a delegation from the district council, the town council, firms, trade unionists and others to seek Government assistance. According to a magistrate's decision last week, the council is expected to find £300,000 to put out the fire. In terms of grant penalties, that would be £342,000—the product of a 4p rate, in areas that can ill afford it. Clearly, there is a case here for help from central Government.
The Department of the Environment has at last agreed to meet the delegation, but only after I put before the House early-day motion No. 46, signed by several other hon. Members; after an oral and a written question were put forward; and after I had tried to raise the matter on the Adjournment. Now, because we are approaching the summer recess—which I voted against—that delegation may not be met until September. That is not adequate for my constituents. Serious dangers need to be dealt with, and North-East Derbyshire district council is beginning to require assistance, particularly financial assistance.
There is an embankment of 40 to 45 ft. with a stream at the bottom. At the top of the embankment, on car park land behind firms, the temperature is 40 deg C. on the ground. At the top of the embankment the soil temperature is 60 deg. At the bottom of the embankment it is 87 degrees. Three feet below the bottom of the embankment the temperature is 630 deg C. in various hot spots. The fire cannot be put out with water; water oxidises the soil. The fire is gathering momentum; because it is growing in area it is threatening other firms and gas

supplies in the area. At stake in the immediate future are 300 jobs. If the district council puts up the rates and requires firms under the Public Health Act 1936 to provide the money, a number of those firms will go bankrupt. They will not be assisted by the poll tax, nor by the provision that is made for businesses; they will go by the board, and 300 jobs will have gone in an area of high unemployment. Even worse than that is the fact that the stream at the bottom of the embankment is within 100 yd of a BMX track. Children are not prevented from going to the stream; all that is provided is a warning notice. That must be acted on.
I return to Clay Cross. That struggle showed that to engage in hard battles against Government measures is not unpopular. In a recent by-election, a formerly debarred Clay Cross councillor was elected to the North-East Derbyshire district council with 85 per cent. of the votes. The Government believe that such a high vote is impossible, but that is the percentage that has to be gained to establish a closed shop.
The Clay Cross councillors did not intend to defy the law. They believed that under the Housing Finance Act 1972 a commissioner could be sent in to take over housing. It was only after they had been through the courts that it was decided that under the Local Government Act 1933 a surcharge should be levied on the councillors. Many of my constituents, particularly those in the mining community, are aware of the fact that, although the action that was taken then appeared to be quite clear and open, the law can apply differing interpretations. Many sacked miners in north-east Derbyshire, including many of those who helped me in my election campaign, believe that to be so.
The Government should not unduly burden people. Instead, they should seek to reconcile conflicting interests. I shall quote from a letter that has been written to me by somebody who lives in north-east Derbyshire. It is not a put-up job. The letter comes from a 10-year-old girl in Unstone Green, which is a deprived area. In her letter Claire Staines writes:
Dear Mr. Barnes, I am just writing to say how glad I am that you won your election. Can you ask Mrs. Thatcher to let us have more books and equipment for our school, and when is she going to find a job for my Dad?
What is being done through local government financial legislation to ensure that books are placed in Claire Staines' school and to ensure that her father is given the opportunity, because the community is prosperous, to work again? I do not think that anything is being done.

Mr. Tony Favell: It gives me great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). I know his constituency well, and I spent many hours of my courtship there with my wife. I was a native of Sheffield, and one of the nicest areas to go to was north-east Derbyshire.
Occasionally I travel to Bolsover, where I am president of the Conservative Association, and where I like to keep an eye on the activities of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It is a very pleasant area——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Skinner's hole.

Mr. Favell: That is true. The hon. Member for Bolsover tells me that none of his predecessors lived in my house, but I have my doubts.
I am glad to be speaking this evening because the subject for debate was chosen by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). I have connections with that area because I have been a ratepayer in that constituency for the past 20 years, and during that time I have seen the city steadily decline.
The hon. Gentleman said that there were problems with Sheffield's industrial base. Those problems have been largely self-inflicted by the Socialist council that has ruled the city for more than 40 years.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the steel industry. When the Minister replies to the debate, he might comment on the fact that there is no major steel producer in Sheffield. Most of the steel producing in south Yorkshire is carried out in Rotherham. That is due to the fact that the rates in Rotherham are lower than those in Sheffield. Four years ago a manager of British Steel in Sheffield was complaining that it was costing him £1,000 per employee in rates per annum. It is no wonder that he has chosen to move to Rotherham rather than stay in Sheffield.

Mr. Allen McKay: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is untrue. If he looks at the history of the steelworks and of Sheffield he will discover that the older parts of the steelworks disappeared. He will discover that due to the recession, not because of a lack of demand for steel, they disappeared. The Steel Peach and Tozer steelworks have always been in Rotherham. They did not move from Sheffield to Rotherham.

Mr. Favell: I am suggesting not that Steel Peach and Tozer has moved from Sheffield to Rotherham, but that it is still open, whereas all the major steel producing plants in Sheffield are shut.

Mr. McKay: The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. The reason why Steel Peach and Tozer is there is Concast. The investment at Steel Peach and Tozer made it one of the best plants in Europe. The reason for Samuel Fox remaining at Stocksbridge is exactly the same.

Mr. Favell: The fact remains that there is no major steel producer in the city of steel, Sheffield. That is largely due to the fact that rates are higher in Sheffield than in Rotherham.
Why have industrial cities such as Sheffield been destroying their industrial and commercial base'? It is because. as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) said, only 18 million out of 35 million adults in this country pay rates. Of the 18 million who are liable to pay rates, only 12 million pay full rates. In places such as Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and Leicester the figure is lower because of housing benefit.
Rate rebates were introduced not that long ago because certain councils were spending more money than ratepayers could afford. It was a modest provision to start with, but now 40 per cent. of people receive rebates. That is obviously nonsense. They receive rebates because the cities and towns in which they live spend more money than the people can afford to pay for. The wonderful point about the community charge is that it will mean that the people receiving the services will largely be able to afford to pay for them. This returns democracy to the towns and the cities, and not before time.
If we continue with the present system, there is no doubt that it will destroy our industrial cities. The simple

reason is that there are no votes in saving money. At the moment the votes are in spending money. Only a quarter of the people in Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle—all our great industrial cities—pay rates. It is not in the interests of people for whom they vote to save money. The interest is only in spending money.
Three or four years ago I discussed the matter with Birmingham Members—it is interesting to see my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) here—and they said, "My goodness, the Conservative party will do well in Birmingham." I said, "No, it will not, because there are no votes in saving money." The Conservative group on Birmingham council was a low-spending group, but it was voted out because there were no votes in saving money, as the group found to its cost.
Not so long ago, before the introduction of rate rebates, Socialist councils tried to hold rates down, simply because the lads as well as those who indulged in commerce and industry had to pay rates. That no longer happens. In my view, having spent my whole working life in a northern industrial city, this long-awaited, long-sought reform will be their salvation. It is a sledgehammer, but we need one to crack the nuts. It is not before time. It is welcome and I heartily endorse it. I cannot wait to vote for it.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who made his maiden speech today, on his felicitous references to our late friend and colleague Tom Swain and his successor Ray Ellis. I shall always remember Tom Swain with affection. He was a picturesque colleague and brave in what he said. Indeed, every hon. Member will remember how Tom Swain reacted when some kind of missile—he could not know what it was—was thrown down from the Strangers Gallery.
I pay tribute also to my Scottish colleague the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who has been a personal friend of my family for many years. I should like to follow what he said about the poll tax.
My contribution is precise. It refers to an interview given on "The World This Weekend" on the Sunday before last by the director of finance for the Lothian region, David Chynowith, to Gordon Clough. Clough said:
there's one group of people for whom the community charge will be a universal headache, the local authority finance directors who'll have to put the will of Parliament into practice. They'll have to reorganise their systems to assess and collect a tax, levied not on houses, which stay put, but on people, who don't. In Scotland, of course, they've already started work preparing for that day two years hence, when the rates overnight turn into the community charge.
Earlier today, in a remarkable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) made a point with characteristic embellishment. Michael Ancram lost his seat. The Secretary of State for Defence nearly lost his. Another Scottish Minister lost his. The basic reason was the immediacy of the poll tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North said in his sparkling speech that there should be a piper's lament for the election results for Michael Ancram and the other Conservatives, including John MacKay. I pay tribute to


John MacKay. He was a decent Minister in our personal dealings with him. The Scottish election result was as much about the poll tax as it was about anything.
David Chynowith is the director of finance for Lothian region. He is also the chairman of an ad hoc committee of Scottish finance directors who are grappling with gestation problems. He said that he had been recalling what some of the problems were:
Well, the main difficulties at the moment are trying to analyse the various systems which we'll need to set up before 1989 … we've only got until April 1989 to get everything up and running and the first major job of course is that the assessor has to set up the community charge register and once he's done that, we've then got to sort out the means of collection from the very many more people that we'll have to collect for as compared to the domestic rate charge.
He was asked:
What about the business of setting up a community charge register … That isn't exactly the same as it is the electoral register.
Chynowith replied:
No, indeed it isn't and it's a running register as compared with the electoral register which is set on one day in the year. It has to be kept up-to-date continuously and must at all times record all the people who are aged over 18 and who are staying in this area.
Is the director of finance for Lothian region and the chairman of the ad hoc committee in Scotland right or wrong to say that the register has to be kept up to date continuously each month? Is that so, or is it not?
Clough then said:
Well, that's to say it's got to be updated pretty well monthly has it, because you have to collect in 12 monthly instalments?
Chynowith replied:
That's correct. It has to be updated continuously, yes and so each month it must be correct for each of the residents in the area.
Will the Minister tell me whether that is right or wrong? He can get the information from his officials in the Box, because the Box had better have thought about these things. Is it true that the register has to be updated every month? Let it be put on the record that I give the Minister an opportunity to reply. The fact is that, like so many of the other things that I have seen in the last quarter of a century, the poll tax is ill thought out.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), whom I hold in the highest regard, has repeatedly asked these questions both publicly and privately—he does not say anything in private that he would not say in public. It is no good dismissing him. After all, he has run one of the major committees in Birmingham, so he just might know something about this. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I intend to make my small contribution when the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has finished.

Mr. Dalyell: Let me then warn the House that I think that it is correct that if the register is to work—we are not talking about equity here—there has to be an updating every month. If the Minister does not deny that, either he does not know the answer or I am right. It must be one or t'other.
Clough continues:

So how is the assessor setting about this? Is he having to send out questionnaires to every household to say, who is going to be living in your house on April 5th 1989, who's over 18?
I wish that the Minister had heard my hon. Friend in his maiden speech talking about aunties under the bed, because in the Dulwich question that he put so brilliantly my hon. Friend said exactly what would happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) has gone on record time and again as saying that he now has 43,000 constituents but, by the time the poll tax is in operation, he will have only 10,000 because they will not register. How are people going to get them to register?
The director of finance answered:
He will have to canvass every property in the area. It won't just be a postal canvas of course because there is not a complete response to any postal canvass one does and it will be necessary for him to employ staff to actually go around and knock on doors and stand on door steps, I'm afraid.
Clough said:
What happens if someone who is initially registered on April 5th, let's say, decides to go away and live somewhere else … so he presumably doesn't … or he, she doesn't have to go on paying the community charge to Lothian but will presumably have to pay it somewhere else. Whose duty is it to tell whom about that?
I suspect that the answer is a ministerial lemon, because the Minister does not know.

Mr. Donald Dewar: That is not untypical.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend says that that is not untypical, but my hon. Friend and I know a good deal more about this than the Minister does, because with us it has been far more immediate. This is how the Secretary of State for Defence, who without any question is a good constituency Member, nearly lost the seat that has been held by the Tory party since the first Reform Bill. That requires some explanation. Edinburgh, South has been held by the Tory party since the first Reform Bill. I confess that the university of Edinburgh came into it and that other factors were at work there, but Ministers must ask themselves what will happen to their colleagues in 1991. I have a great deal of experience in the House, and I know that as soon as we start lifting up stones, creepy crawly things come out. It is wise for Governments to understand what those creepy crawly things are.
Chynowith says:
Well, it's the responsibility of every individual to notify the authority they're leaving and also the authority that they're going to. So every single person over the age of 18 will have that duty and responsibility to ensure that the community charge register is kept up-to-date.
Will every family Cunninghame, North do that? I do not think that I can promise to deliver it in Linlithgow.
Clough says:
It wouldn't be, I think, having too gloomy a view of human nature to suggest that some people might get lost on the Way?
What happens if someone's son is lost in the Sahara? Does he pay? That is the Dulwich factor again. I do not wish to embellish the Dulwich question, because it is the property of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden telling me that the West Lothian question was like the Schleswig-Holstein question. The Schleswig-Holstein question became very interesting and that is what may happen with the Dulwich question.

Mr. Ralph Howell: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about creepy crawlies


that might come from under stones. Is it not true that, at the election, the creepy crawlies did not come out from under the stones and, therefore, the Labour party lost the election?

Mr. Dalyell: That is what I am trying to say. This is something that worries me greatly. One sees how blue the map is—with the exception of Oxford, East—south of a line that starts about 25 miles south of Derby. In Norfolk and East Anglia, there is only one red dot, for Norwich. I mourn greatly the loss of Ken Weetch in Ipswich. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) can say that the Conservatives won the election in his area, but has it not occurred to him that, even with the huge Conservative majority of 102, there is not a single Conservative Member on the Greater Glasgow conurbation? Does that not create problems?

Mr. Howell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Thoughtful Conservatives might ask why it happened. What I am saying—not on the hustings—is that this has much to do with the fact that Scotland was being used as a guinea pig for the poll tax. That is a partial explanation for the remarkable discrepancies. If hon. Members were wise, they would challenge their Ministers on how this scheme would work. I do not think that the Minister has much of a clue, because he has not yet put his mind to it.
Chynowith says:
I'm absolutely certain that they will because clearly if people move regularly, they may take the view that they'll wait for the local authority to catch up with them.
Where are all the local authority personnel going to come from for this? An enormous amount of staff are involved.
I will read into the record the question to which I received an answer today:
Mr. Dalyell asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civil servants in all departments are currently involved in preparation for the implementation of the poll tax?
Mr. Michael Howard: 21 staff in the Department of the Environment, 10 in the Scottish Office and three in the Welsh Office are engaged full-time on all aspects of the reform of local government finance. A further 21 staff in the Department of the Environment and 36 staff in other central departments are involved, as part of their other duties, in contributing to this work.
Those 21 staff in the Department of the Environment had better be asked to bend their minds to the kind of question that the director of finance—the technical man, who is a careful accountant—is being asked.
Clough said:
OK. So you've got to draw up a community charge register which is going to need extra staff. How many people are you going to have to take on, do you think, to do that?
Chynowith said:
Well I understand the assessor is estimating in Lothian that he'll need between 60 and 70 extra staff.
If 60 or 70 extra staff will be needed in Lothian, 120 to 140 staff will be needed in Strathclyde. How many one will need in the Western Isles I do not know. The physical cost of employing extra staff is very real. What kind of money will they be paid? Clough said
There is going to be … a difficulty isn't there, even in collecting the names because if people know that in admitting that there's going to be an 18 year old living in the house, they're going to have to pay whatever it might be … a great temptation not to register.
I ask the Minister to save time by reading carefully the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for

Cunninghame, North, because he put it more graphically than I could. He said that people will be disappearing under the bed. That may be a flight of poetic language.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has advanced three arguments. The first is that it will be hard work for the finance officers. They would say that. I have never had any sympathy with local government officers who complain about changes in legislation because it means that they have to do more work, if it happens to be a better system. Secondly, he cast aspersions on the Scottish people by suggesting that there would be only 10,000 people left in one of his hon. Friend's constituencies. That suggests a very high rate of dishonesty among the Scottish people, which I am sure is not true. The third suggestion was that he was concerned about the Government losing seats. I am grateful to him for his concern about our electoral future, but when will he gel. to the main issue—equity? Is the community charge fair, because it increases the charge so that everybody who uses services pays towards their cost?

Mr. Dalyell: I am not casting any aspersions on the Scottish people. I am simply a little worldly wise. I know how people behave when asked to pay more money than they probably can pay in circumstances where the electoral register is not perfect. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) said how imperfect the electoral register was in his area. It means forming another register. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) dismissed the directors of finance, but when dealing with them and with actuaries I have learnt to be careful. One has to take them seriously. The man I am quoting is a careful accountant.
Chynowith added:
Yes, I think there will be a temptation and especially for those people who … are itinerant, whose perhaps jobs change regularly or perhaps they're on the move … through their job and … I think that there will certainly be a great temptation on people not … to register.
Does the Minister accept that there will he this temptation?
Clough said:
So are you then going to have to employ constantly people who will have right of entry to households to count the number of beds that have been slept in and whether they've got big shoes alongside them?
Chynowith replied:
We hope very much that we do not have to do that sort of thing. I don't think that the local authorities will relish that at all … it's not the sort of thing which we like to be doing.
CLOUGH: What about the problems of collection once you get that far?
CHYNOWITH: Yes, well, collection is going to be most difficult because we are going to be dealing with people who at the moment don't pay any form of domestic rates.
We now come to the question of equity. How does one justify, on the basis of equity, the fact that those who live in largish houses will be paying the same as those who are crowded into unsatisfactory houses?

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Surely, we are talking about the charge for local authority services. Houses do not borrow books, go swimming or use the roads. It is the individuals within the houses that use the services. We are talking about a charge on the individual for the use of those local authority services.

Mr. Dalyell: If that is going to be the argument, we can go back to Wat Tyler. I take the hon. Gentleman at face value and say that, if that is his view of life, there will be great trouble in the country.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the easy platitudes that we have heard from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) are exactly the same sort of things we were hearing a couple of years ago in Scotland from people who looked at the superficialities of the matter and found it attractive but who increasingly found that there was an awful lot more to it than met the eye? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government accept that the collection cost of the new tax in Scotland will be £21 million a year? That is how much it will cost to carry out the extraordinary shoe-measuring exercise and the rest that has been described. On a pro rata basis one would be talking about £210 million a year for the whole of the United Kingdom.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the evasion rate that the Government now accept as likely is somewhere in the region of 15 per cent., but more sceptical people, such as myself, think it will be in the region of 20 per cent? Therefore, in spite of the silly snipes about the dishonesty of the Scottish people, it is not a victimless crime, if crime it is, because inexorably it means that the more people evade, the higher the tax is for those who remain. The figures that are being quoted as a per capita tax in England and Wales are bogusly low because they do not take account of the evasion factor of at least 20 per cent.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: That is very succinct.

Mr. Dalyell: It was very much to the point. The House will learn to listen to my hon. Friend as I have for the past 10 years. He talks a great deal of sense and does not open his mouth without knowing what he is talking about.
My hon. Friend asked a question as to the origins of all this. I will explain the origins. The Prime Minister, like Henry Plantagenet in a fit of frustration, said, "Who will rid me of the rates?" There are junior Ministers who, like the knights who went to do away with St. Thomas a Becket at his own altar in Canterbury wanting to please the monarch, said, "We will get rid of the rates." One gets back to a sort of patronage system where there are junior Ministers—Michael Ancram was one—who were only too pleased to oblige. All I can say is that there are certain dangers in obliging monarchs who ask too much or ask that which is impossible, and Michael Ancram paid the price.
The Prime Minister made an unwise promise. She decided that the evidence to the Layfield committee on local income tax was overwhelming. She found that there was a refusal from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who had more political nous and would not do it. The former Member of Parliament for Wanstead and Woodford, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, would not do it, but the present Secretary of State for the Environment, for reasons that fit in with his character, undertook to do it and then shuffled it off on other people.
If the Minister is dealing with the poll tax, he has been handed a poisoned chalice.
Chynowith said:
They're fully rebated and they will be coming due to pay at least part of the community charge because everybody has to pay 20 per cent. at least and that in itself is a major headache because we're going to be trying to collect relatively small amounts of money—perhaps something of the order of £10 or less a month and a lot of these people just will not have the wherewithal to pay it.

That brings us to the viability of the cost of collection. What is the Government's answer to the sheer cost of trying to get 20 per cent. or relatively small sums of money from itinerant people? The matter is mind-boggling.
Clough said:
But the people on supplementary benefit as I understand it can help in paying even that 20 per cent. cut pay by going to the office and getting the money and then sending it on to you.
The director of finance replied:
Yes indeed. As I understand it, there will be provision under the supplementary benefit regulations for a payment to be made to individuals which would cover the 20 per cent. but it's not at all clear how that is going to be done and we … obviously the regulations have still to be made.
Clough said:
You're having to put into … operation a very complicated bit of legislation. As you work on it are you finding that there are areas which you have to deal with which aren't actually spelt out in the Act?
Ministers had better note the reply:
Yes indeed. We think at the moment there is something around 90 different issues which will have to be settled by some form of statutory instrument and they will have to laid fairly soon because of course we've got to develop the systems that will make this thing work.
There are 90 different issues—90 statutory instruments. Has anybody told Mr. Speaker or the Government business managers about that? I have it from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that we are to spend hours on each one. We shall not let anything go through. Ninety times 90 is 8,100 minutes of parliamentary time.

Mr. Bennett: That was a promise made before the shadow Cabinet election.

Mr. Dalyell: Promises may have been made, but somehow we have experience of the matter. I am the man who, for 47 days—some of my colleagues did not approve—kept the House going in 1978–79 on devolution. We know how it can be done. Some hon. Members can talk even longer than I can. The Government business managers should take the matter on board. They should bear in mind the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Garscadden and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).

Mr. Wilson: People will miss their trains.

Mr. Dalyell: Yes, there will be missed trains. If we are to talk about the Scottish people, they will expect us to miss our trains because of this matter. The Government can set the business down for Thursday nights. The night sleeper will be less frequented, because we shall be here.
Clough went on:
That does suggest—and I'm not asking you to make a political comment but it does suggest—that the Act wasn't properly thought through.
Chynowith replied:
Well, I wouldn't say that. No, I think in fact in drawing up the Act, the civil servants who drew it up were well aware that there were a lot of gaps in it and they have made provision for statutory instruments to be made subsequent to the passing of the Act. But clearly, it was rushed through and there were a lot of last amendments to it … clearly it was an Act which was difficult to draft and is going to be even more difficult to implement.
Let not the Government say that they have not been warned.
I wish to raise one other local authority issue. In my constituency there has been a proposition that the village of Torphichen should have the first AIDS hospice or


hostel in Europe. For 25 years I have always taken the view that it is not up to Members of Parliament to second-guess or try to overturn local authority decisions even though they may be decisions of local authorities that, as in my case, are not Labour-dominated. Local authorities have their place and must be treated with respect by hon. Members. Therefore, I do not wish to bother or concern the House with the direct issues of Torphichen.
I wish to ask the Minister—I do not expect an answer tonight, as that would be unreasonable—to what extent the Government are thinking about AIDS hospices and hostels? Such a development was one of the recommendations of the report of the Select Committee on Social Services. What is the Government's view—

possibly this should be passed onto the Scottish Office, but other Government Departments should reflect upon it—about placing AIDS hospices or hostels in small rural communities? I believe that a hospice is somewhere that the terminally ill can die with dignity and a hostel is where patients go with some hope of recovery. That recovery involves integration with the local community.
It is a delicate issue, and I leave it at that. Any reader of the Scottish press or viewer of television—not only national television; the French and the West German television companies are also interested—will be aware of its importance. It is something of a test case. I ask Ministers to reflect on the issues involved.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Finance

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: There is no doubt that the Government have a mandate for change. There is also no doubt that for most people voting in the general election local government was an important issue. Many people are sick and tired of the present rating system.
A single person may live next door to a similar house where there are two, three or four income earners. That person may find that he pays exactly the same local tax—that is what rates are—as those four people. As a result, he feels hard done by.
There is no doubt that when it was first devised, the rating system was not intended to bear the huge and groaning burden that the present rating system must bear. It was devised to fill in potholes, to make sure that there was a road from one village to another and from one town to another, and to ensure that itinerants on the road were put into a home overnight and then moved on to another parish. Rates were meant to be a small burden on the community. However, as time has moved on the kind of sums that local government needs to raise have grown fast. The sums that local government spend today are between £26,000 million and £30,000 million. They are vast sums.
It is no good thinking that an outworn and overburdened system can bear such expenditure. There is a common feeling among people that the present system is unjust. There is no shadow of doubt but that the present system is unjust to many people. However, it is no good changing from one unjust system to another potentially unjust system or one that may be even more unjust. It is no good the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) talking about Thomas a Becket or saying, "Who will rid me of this pestilent tax?", without suggesting some better tax to put in its place.
One Parliament after another in this country has fiddled around with local government, and nearly always to local government's disadvantage. We have had one local government Bill after another, in which I have had some hand since I have had the great honour of being a representative in this House. Has local government improved? The answer is that it has not. We have tried one system after another. We abolished one type of council and put in the great urban and district councils. We had a West Midlands metropolitan council, and what a disaster that was. We have now decided to do away with such councils. We must find a better, more efficient and just way in which to raise money for local government expenditure for the needs of our local people. It can, of course, be done by taxation or by VAT. However, the people who say that the few pay for the many have some justice in their argument. There must be some accountability, but, if one is to change the basis of local taxation, there must be that one essential justice that runs throughout this ancient country's history—the ability to pay. That ability to pay is missing from the poll tax as it will be. Let us be quite blunt; call it what one will, it is a poll tax.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Surely the ability to pay should be taken care of by the tax and benefit system. Why should there be two tax and benefit systems?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I shall come to that point. One could say that it should be done through national taxation. However, I am one of those people who, between the ages of 22 and 40 years, when I had the honour to come here was in local government. I believe in government, and I believe in it being local. I believe also that there should be a structure in government that accounts itself to local people and their needs. Therefore, there needs to be a local tax.
In a debate on one of the local government Bills, I suggested to Patrick Jenkin, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, that there was a need for change. I have not had any reason to change the system which I suggested back in 1983 and which I hope the Government will reconsider. It is quite simple. If we believe in a property-owning democracy as I do, that it is right to give between £2·5 million and £3 million of relief to people who own their own homes through mortgage tax relief, as I do, and that possibly the best investment that any person can make is in his own home—I believe that it is—then a property tax should form part of the basis of any form of collecting local revenue.
Therefore, I suggest that we need not to abolish the rating system, but to use the property tax in a rather different way. What we need to do—the Government could even do it—is to say that a property tax may not be increased by more than the rate of inflation without a Government edict. That would be fair. The same applies to the business rate. Because the business man is not represented directly by a local vote, he is represented by us. Therefore, the business rate should not he able to be increased by more than that same factor. In an inflation-proofed rating system that is above the rate support grant, one should get any extra expenditure from a poll tax. That poll tax should be based on nearly everybody except the most impecunious and poor. Everybody, except those people, should pay a poll tax, because it is right that everybody should be involved in, should bear some responsibility for and be willing to vote on what their local council does.
If the whole rating system is swept away and a poll tax is introduced, a vast and heavy burden will result. The system will not work, because it will not be just or based on the ability to pay. It is no good abolishing the whole of the property tax system; the problem will not go away. We are moving along the right lines in changing the system, but we must make it fairer and ensure that the tax can be borne by a greater number of people.
The Government will be out of their tiny mind if they think that they can abolish rates and transfer the burden without taking account of the ability to pay. As the Bill progresses, the Government will merely have to make one exception after another. I am told that London ratepayers cannot bear the full burden. Fine, we shall make an exception for them. Then there will be other exceptions. It is exceptions that make lousy legislation and bad, unjust laws.
Let us change the present system where it bears unfairly only on property owners and use all the benefits and systems of our modern society to ensure that the system is fairer than it is at present to a greater number of people. If we do this together we shall have a fairer system and more people will become involved in local government. Surely, that is what we want in the end.
It is no good any of us thinking that this is like a children's tea party, with everyone gaining. There is not a


present for everybody. Some people who have not previously had to pay local taxes will have to pay, and so they should. In the end we want people to feel that, even if they do not like the system, it is just, because a just society is more united and happier than an unjust one. If the Government push through their proposals, the system will not be just, people will not be happy, and it will not work.

Mr. Allen McKay: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark ) because we have sat on many local government committees together and I hope that we shall sit together on many more. I shall read and analyse his speech carefully. Nobody would deny that the present rating system needs to be reviewed, but the Government's proposed rating system will be equally unfair, if not more so. The hon. Gentleman should note what happened in Scotland, because the poll tax had a great bearing on the election results there. There is great unrest about it throughout the country and among Conservative Members, and the Government should realise full well what is happening.
It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) intervened, because as a farmer he is one of the most privileged people in the country. Farmers do not pay rates. Every hon. Member present in the Chamber except the hon. Gentleman pays rates. His is a privileged position. But I shall not enter into the rates argument—I had that with my local branch of the National Farmers Union during the election. We agreed on many points regarding the necessity of rating and the problems of it for the farming community. The hon. Gentleman will know of those problems and somebody must pay for them.

Mr. Ralph Howell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that if agricultural land was rated the price of food would have to rise considerably. That point must be accepted.

Mr. McKay: As well as land, we must consider buildings and other factors.
It would appear from some of the speeches made by Conservative Members today that no one will lose. We have heard about the old lady on her own and the young married couple who will not lose. We have also heard about industry and commerce, which will not lose. Who will pay, if no one is to lose? I am reminded of Paddy's donkey. Paddy had the bright idea that it was costing too much to feed his donkey. He decided that it would be more economical if he cut down on the donkey's food. He discovered that when the donkey reached the stage when it could do without food, it died. That is what will happen to local government. There will be so many cuts that eventually local government will be cut out altogether.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall try to help my hon. Friend. Of course we could rate farmers. That would help local authorities, because they could get back some of the £500 million to £1 billion net payments that have been made to the Common Market, most of which is recycled into the pockets of farmers for growing useless cereals or for storing them. It would actually be an advantage to rate the large cereal farmers.

Mr. McKay: I have taken that point up with the National Farmers Union and my local farmers, with whom I have a very good relationship. We are paying the farmers twice, once for growing the cereals, and then by subsiding them to put the crops into intervention. That is a crazy system.
How did the position in local government arise? Committees and Governments of various political persuasions have tried to find an alternative to the domestic rate for many years. They have not found an alternative that is as cheap or as easy to collect as the present system. There is no doubt that Government Committees have shied away from alternatives which were not as cheap or as easy.
The Government have now found a different method, but it will not be as cheap or as easy to collect as the present system. For more than 350 years the rates have been the principal source of local revenue. It will take a very strong case to justify the loss of that experience or the costs that will be incurred. The Government have not made such a case and we need more time to examine the proposals. We need more time than the Government are prepared to allow. Clearly, when the House reassembles in the autumn there will be a major Bill on the community charge, and no doubt that Bill will be in Committee after the Christmas recess.
We all know that there is a case against the present system. The single elderly woman who lives in a large house on her own and who is paying an enormous rate is often quoted. That is what the rate rebate system was brought into being for. Conservative Members go on about people not paying rates and about people receiving rate rebates. The reason why they receive rate rebates is that they simply do not earn sufficient, particularly in low-wage areas. Indeed, if they are earning at all in my area, they are extremely lucky.
We could equally make a case for a childless couple, asking why they should pay towards the education bill when they have no children and are not likely to have any. People with their own transport may ask why they should pay towards a transport system when they do not use or need it. We could go on and on citing reasons why people should not pay rates. People have made the point forcefully.
The problems with the rates have arisen because of the reduction in grant from central Government to local government, which has dropped from 61 to about 46·5 per cent.—and that has caused tremendous problems for local government—and because of the industrial depression.
I think that Conservative Members have got it the wrong way round. They say that industry moved out of areas because of high rates, but those high rates were caused by industries becoming depressed. They closed down; they went bankrupt; they were not earning. The old rateable base disappeared. The few industries that were left took on the burden of the rates that all the industries used to share.
A combination of those two factors—the loss of grant from central Government to local government, and the depression of industry—caused a rate problem, particularly in northern areas. The Government tell local government to cut back on its rate spending, but who are the so-called high-spending authorities, and what are they


spending the money on? I do not want to hear about frivolous things such as newspapers. They take a very small percentage of what local authorities spend.
Local government has tried to take on the responsibilities abdicated by central Government. It has tried to take on board the loss of employment and to create employment. It has tried to take on board subsidies for housing, which has been sold off in some areas. Ironically, local government cannot touch that money either. It has been salted away in a bank and cannot be used. If it were released, some spending power would be released for the local authorities.
Those, then, are some of the problems that have been caused, not by local government or by the rating system, but by the deliberate policy of a Conservative Government who have cut back and depressed local areas. Businesses that had taken on the huge burden of industries that had closed called for help, and rightly so. The Government reduced interest rates, abolished the national insurance surcharge, reduced corporation tax and dispensed with wages councils, so wages were lowered. All that was done to help industry, but while that was happening the opposite was happening on the domestic side. Rents and rates were increasing. Now, the Government are trying to turn the burden back from industry arid commerce on the on to the domestic ratepayer. Those ratepayers have already been hit, but the Government are saying, "You should help more."
There is little doubt that in my area industrial and commercial rates will be lower. I am not a betting man, but, if I were, I would put money on its not increasing prosperity, jobs or job opportunities. I know that in many cases industry in my area is running on a knife edge, not just because of the rates, but because of energy profits an energy prices. I can point to two firms in the area that are second to none. BXL plastics depends on the prices of oil and other commodities from abroad, and Shaw Carpets also depends considerably on oil produce, the price and the variance between the dollar and the pound. There is no doubt that the alteration in rate will lift the anxiety and the burden, but it will not increase the number of people employed. Only better sales.

Mr. Favell: One of the things that the Government have been trying to do is reduce energy prices—for example, by getting some sense into the coal industry. Reducing the number of people required to produce a ton of coal reduces energy costs. As the hon. Gentleman has suggested, lower energy costs help industry in his area. Why on earth will low rates not also help it? Will they not bring greater prosperity, and also jobs? Jobs, after all, are what we in the north want, not more people employed in the town hall. Where, for instance, is the sense in Manchester employing twice as many people as Stockport to empty a dustbin, when there is not the slightest difference between the two?

Mr. McKay: I cannot comment on what happens in Manchester and Stockport without examining the situation—no doubt there are good reasons for it—but what the hon. Member says about the mining industry and coal prices can be taken a bit further. The Government's policy has increased the rates burden in my area. Nine collieries have been closed. The area depended on the rates from those nine collieries, and the remaining businesses are

now having to bear the burden of those closures. Furthermore, if the collieries are not producing coal, the spending power of the miners is also lost.
The domestic rate is now a political issue. Whether one is in or out of work, whether one is rich or poor, young or old, whether one lives in a bungalow or in a castle, everybody will pay the same rate. A person who lives in a bungalow will pay the same rate as somebody who lives in Wentworth Woodhouse. It is crazy to introduce such a system. As the hon. Member for Selly Oak said, we shall have to create exceptions. As soon as the Bill becomes an Act, statutory instruments will have to be introduced to cover those exceptions.
Whenever we alter the law relating to local government, we make it worse. A previous Government decided to abolish the small urban district councils, which were cheap to run and which provided an excellent service. That was when all our troubles began. How will the water and sewerage rates be calculated? The water supplies cannot be metered by next year when this measure is expected to reach the statute book. How, therefore, will water and sewerage rates be calculated? People are worried about this. They know what is to happen.
The poll tax will depress areas that are already depressed and it will place additional burdens on people who are already overburdened. The Bill will be discussed in Committee. The worst that we can do is to try to alter it. The best that we can do is to bury it.

Mr. Robin Squire: I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) for initiating this debate. At a time when we can, we hope, still influence Government thinking, it provides us with an opportunity to discuss again the community charge. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) last addressed the House immediately after I had spoken during the first day of debate on the Loyal Address. And surprise, surprise, we are discussing the same issue tonight. It is opportune to take it a stage further, because matters have moved on since then.
I shall concentrate on the few reasons that have been advanced by my right hon. Friends for introducing this charge. I make it clear, if I need to do so to any hon. Member, that I oppose its introduction. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, for whom I have considerable personal affection, said in a number of interviews that this charge should be introduced because there is no logic in all those who enjoy the same local government services not paying the same charge. It is an interesting theory and at first sight it has a certain superficial attraction.
The principle is that we should pay the same amount for education and social services, regardless of our resources, but why do we not do the same on defence or the Health Service? What is so specal about local government services that they should be funded by a flat rate charge when we are not proposing to extend the same benefit to nationally funded services? The more that one looks at the matter the more one sees the logic of the proposition that we should continue to draw on a property tax, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said. Broadly speaking, after income tax and VAT, a property tax is the natural third leg of the tripod. We can argue about the basis for a property tax and whether there should be a revaluation.


If there is not to be a revaluation, I should like to be the first to opt to pay my income tax on the basis of my 1973 earnings. In principle, a property tax is a perfectly reasonable suggestion and we should stick to it.
My experience so far is that not a few people who stand to benefit should the community charge be introduced are embarassed by it and consider it unfair. They have said to me, "It would be nice for me personally, but I do not think that I can justify it when I look at the nature of those who will be paying much more.' It is a welcome, although not common, attitude. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should be aware of that attitude, because it is important. I do not believe that the claim that we should pay an equal amount for the same service stands up, and it is not consistent with the provision of national services.
The residual claim that is increasingly being uttered—occasionally with a note of desperation—is that the community charge proposals were in the manifesto. I commend to hon. Members the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) who last week skilfully made clear his position on the theory of manifesto accountability. He said that he had never believed in it as a reasonable concept. I agree with him.
I was not consulted on the subject, but I opposed the introduction of the community charge in Scotland. My hon. Friends who were in the House before the election may remember how our attitude was conditioned by the approach of our Scottish colleagues, who argued strongly for the community charge in Scotland. I am the last person to deny hon. Members a tax or a piece of legislations that they are seeking, particularly if it does not affect me——

Mr. Caborn: What has happened to them?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Member asks a pertinent if embarrassing question which is not for me to answer but, as he rightly implies, some of my colleagues asked for it.
I am anxious that the political lessons—there is a political dimension in this matter—be learned by the Government before it is too late. Much of the doubt and questioning and many of the fears that have been expressed by Conservatives on this issue have been on the structure of the proposed tax, its innate fairness or unfairness and the relative ease of collection. I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to bear in mind that, as the weeks and months go by, the political dimension will become stronger.
Because of the nature of any major tax, a number of hon. Friends will be a little embarrassed about its impact. That will not go away. They may not now be involved in our discussions about the fairness or rectitude of such a tax relative to the present form, but they will be involved in its political impact. I judge that they will be involved in a way that will not increase support for the Government's proposals. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to think carefully about this measure.
We are pledged to introduce a fairer charge. I am happy to consider ways of improving the fairness of the payment for local government services. I suggest that, if we embark on the community charge course, there is little room for halfway measures. There are few compromises. There are few ways in which we can get a satisfactory answer if a number of people—perhaps a large number—object to the initial premise. My fear is that the majority of the people will not be convinced, whether in one year or five

years, that it is fair for the man in his castle to pay the same as the man in his mid-terrace cottage. Because I believe that, I urge my Government to rethink.

Mr. Ralph Howell: I have listened to many speeches on this subject. Many hon. Members have said that there will be gaiiners and losers. But there is a way in which we can all be gainers, and that is if local government reduces overmanning. In 1960, 2 million people were employed in local government. There are now 3 million. We argue about how these charges will be levied on the whole population, but we should concentrate our minds on economising in local government and getting value for money. There could be a million fewer people employed in local government. What are they doing? There are virtually no more children to educate or dustbins to empty than 1960; also, there are about five times as many planners as in 1974.
There is much to be said for thinking about the community charge in the way Professor Patrick Mulford did in his article in the Daily Telegraph today. He said that, whether we are rich or poor, we pay the same amount for a Mars bar. I am not, however, convinced that the same applies to rates.

Mr. Favell: Why not?

Mr. Howell: I believe that there should be an element of property tax. It should not be charged entirely on property, as at present. I would prefer a halfway house between the two forms of charging. However, I am convinced that there should not be two systems which try to level out income. At present we have the income tax and benefits system to try to redistribute income and also rent rebates. The interaction of those two systems creates many anomalies. We should return to one simple system.
I hope that the Government realise that they will make a great mistake if there are two categories of ratepayers—those who pay 100 per cent. and those who pay 20 per cent. If that is how it will be, I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to tell me whether there will be any taper between 20 and 100 per cent. The publication., "Paying for Local Government", does not make it clear. Nor does it make clear how it is proposed to recover unpaid rates. It says:
It is envisaged that the system regulating such deductions. will be a simplification of present arrangements for attaching earnings to pay family maintenance or court fines. It will apply to employees, but not to the unemployed, self-employed or retired.
I am self-employed. It is very odd that people in normal employed work will have to pay whereas the others—I should like to know how many they are, but I believe that they number about 13 million—will not pay the full amount.
Is the change worth it if we do not spread its effects across the board evenly and make adjustments for people who are unable to pay in one tax and benefit system?

Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend is making a good point. If there is to be attachment of earnings on those in employment, why not have attachment of social security benefit for people who are not in employment?

Mr. Howell: The Government must consider that matter, or they run the risk of making a traumatic change and achieving little. lf, as I believe will be the case, a vast


number of people are left outside the scheme and are therefore not effectively charged, the object of the exercise will be destroyed.

Mr. Caborn: Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on redistribution through taxation? One of the sources of concern to the north of England, especially in view of its declining industrial base, is the fact that block grant has declined substantially. It has always been argued in local government circles that block grant is a mechanism to redistribute wealth throughout the United Kingdom. One of the major difficulties for the north is the reduction of Government grants. As I tried to explain, the burden is now clearly lodged with the north whereas previously there was much fairer distribution. If it had not been for the reduction in Government assistance, there would not have been the fairly massive increases in rate contributions in the north.

Mr. Howell: I am afraid that I am unable to follow that argument. There has been too much support from the Government and not enough responsibility in local government. The north, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have had a very good deal; it is the south-east, which creates all the wealth, which has had to pay the bill.
I should like clarification on how married and unmarried couples will be charged. Paragraph 46 of "Paying for Local Government" says:
The Government is therefore considering the suggestion that joint and several liability should apply to unmarried couples who live together.
It is about time that the Government knew what they were going to do; otherwise we will have a further attack on the family and married people. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that those who are married will not be disadvantaged compared to those who are not married.

Mr. John Fraser: There are four people I need to congratulate. The first is my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), on having initiated the debate and, although he is the only person to have done so in the debate, on emphasising the cuts in capital expenditure by local authorities, the effects of which are now being seen more markedly on our council estates. They are starved of capital investment and starved of improvement and are often situated in those difficult areas of the inner city and out city estates. My hon. Friend underlined the extent to which the Government are turning up the fire under the inner-city cauldron by that form of neglect. He also does us a service by initiating not only a debate on the poll tax but a debate in which every speaker since his opening speech has concentrated on that subject. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) said that we will return to the subject time and time again. I expect that there is an enormous amount of truth in that.
Secondly, our congratulations go to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), whom we saw in the Chair tonight. I am sure that those congratulations have the endorsement of all hon. Members.
Thirdly, my congratulations go to the two hon. Members who made maiden speeches. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) is

clearly a Member of great ability. I understand that he has a great reputation at the Bar and we can look forward to hearing from him again. He rightly turned his attention to the poll tax.
The final congratulations are to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who spoke in an insistent regional accent about the problems of his constituency and about the predicament of a constituency where some of those facts are neither understood nor known to some Members on the Government Benches. He illustrated very well some of the absurd nature of local government finance when he dealt with the financial penalties that will be inflicted upon his council for dealing with the Dronfield fire. I hope that the Minister who is to wind up on the matter will say something about that.
The speeches of the hon. Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) are probably more authentic of the concern of Government Back Benchers than those from some other Government Members. It certainly looks as though the non-ratepaying farmer, the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell), also is a floating voter on the matter.

Mr. Ralph Howell: I am not sure whether I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly. I thought he said that I was a non-ratepaying farmer. That is not true, and perhaps he could withdraw that.

Mr. Fraser: Of course I withdraw if the hon. Gentleman is a ratepaying farmer. Perhaps many other farmers will now, in their enthusiasm to take part in this exercise of paying for the services which are received, join the hon. Gentleman in that activity.
A cinema in Baker street has become the centre of a cult movie called "The Blues Brothers". I heard somebody on the radio the other day say that they had seen the film over 100 times. The poll tax will achieve that kind of notoriety. The poll tax featured in the opening day of the debate on the Queen's Speech. It was the subject of a large part of the debate on 1 July. I sat through much of the Summer Adjournment debate today, of which the poll tax formed a fairly large element. It has also been adopted as the second debate in this series. I believe that that will be the pattern for the Session, if not for the entire Parliament. I believe that in adopting the poll tax the Government have adopted a legislative albatross that will fly behind them from the beginning to the end of the Parliament.
The case against the poll tax is not that it is a radical change in taxation. Many people would want to see a radical change in local taxation. I do not suppose one could argue, in principle, against the whole of that stated in the 1974 Conservative party manifesto. It said that rates should be replaced by a tax that is more broadly based and related to people's ability to pay. The trouble with the poll tax is that it remembers the first part of the 1974 manifesto but forgets the second.
This tax will be grossly unfair. It is certainly not based on people's ability to pay. The supreme example of that is the Dulwich case. I know it well because the Prime Minister's house is almost next door to the place where I play squash. It is interesting that the Prime Minister chose to move to Southwark. It shows that councils such as Southwark do not seem to act as that much of a disincentive. We find that the Prime Minister's rates, which will be around £3,000 a year, would fall under the


poll tax to £1,136 a year. A family of five, living in a Lambeth or Southwark council home, would be paying £3,200 between them. Therefore, the sort of burden that would be borne by the Prime Minister and her husband at present in their Dulwich house would go down by almost £2,000 a year, but the burden borne by people living in a smaller, meaner council house would rise to almost the same figure as the Prime Minister is paying now.
There are many other examples of the tax being wholly unrelated to people's ability to pay. Presently rates are based on roughly on the size of a house and relate roughly—I do not say that the system is perfect—to the affluence of the occupier. However, that would be an even more accurate statement about the burden of rates if the present rateable value system were replaced by a system of valuation which was based on capital values, which is a much more realistic way of assessing the rateable value of property.

Mr. Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fraser: I am rather short of time. I mean no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to try to finish by 11.30 pm so that the Minister will have a chance to reply.
The present system has that degree of equity between the affluent and the poorer members of the community. Under the poll tax, four people living in an overcrowded pigsty will pay twice as much community charge as two people living in a palace. The dowager duchess who lives in a mansion will pay as much as the widow who is living in a basement. I realise that that is subject to rebate but, given that the widow is living in a basement is——

Mr. Tim Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fraser: I would rather not. I do not have much time.
Almost invariably with the poll tax, the rich will pay less and the poor will pay more. The papers deposited in the Library showing the comparisons of average rates per household as against the new charge per person mask the inequity because average rates mask the fact that on the whole the rich tend to pay more in rates and the poor tend to pay less.
Apart from looking at it from an individual point of view, ability to pay will be ignored between one area and another.

Mr. Fallon: Has the hon. Gentleman not addressed his mind to the point that I and others have made, that the Prime Minister and her husband are paying tax at a rate much higher than the standard rate? The payment they make through tax is twice what they will be making through the community charge, so their contribution will be much greater than the family next door in the example given by the hon. Member.

Mr. Fraser: I certainly recognise that their tax contribution is high. I do not deny that. Equally, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will deny that there will be an abrupt and hugely beneficial diminution in the amount of rate burden that they pay as a result of the introduction of the community charge, and that there will be a large increase in the total rate burden that will be borne by much poorer people than they. Let us bear in mind that the

percentage of tax that is paid by ordinary working-class people has gone up hugely since the Tory Government got into office.
The next point that I argue is that the poll tax is not only inequitable as between one person and another but does not have regard to ability to pay between one area and another. Deprived areas would be defined as inner-city partnership areas. The definition does not lie for me to make; it is already defined by the Government. I shall gove the House the figures for London. On the Government's own figures, the average rates per head in Hackney, which is the most deprived borough in the country, would be up by £276 per adult. In Lambeth, an inner-city partnership area, the average per head would be up by £259 per person a year. In Islington, another inner-city partnership area, the burden would be up by £206 per head of the population against the average rates per head of the population at the moment. In Southwark, a newly created inner-city partnership area, rates would be up by £269 per head.
We must compare those figures with the most affluent areas of London. In Westminster, the figure would be down by £103 per head; in Barnet, it would be down by £71 per head; in Richmond, it would be down by £51 per head; and, in Bromley it would be down by £26. The House should be aware that the effect is not absolutely even as between rich and poor areas. For Brent's Labour council—it is not the flavour of the month with the Minister or the Government—rates per head will go down under the community charge by £51 per head.
In the local authority that is the flavour of the month—Wandsworth—community charge will lead to a rise or £217 per head per year in the burden of taxation. No wonder we read in this evening's edition of The London Daily News:
Local Government Minister Michael Howard is working on a scheme to slowly phase in big bills from ILEA so that Westminster and Wandsworth boroughs have time to opt out of the schooling system.
That was before they realised the huge burden that will fall upon them as a result of the proposals.
Of course, the community charge is equally undemocratic. It will certainly result in under-registration of votes, particularly in areas such as mine where there is already a great deal of under-registration, and the 20 per cent. minimum charge will make the poorest people in our communities hostage to their local authorities, and the charge will be twice as expensive to collect.
One or two hon. Members have referred to the problem of enforcement of the poll tax. I live in an area in which the population changeover in most of the wards is about 27 per cent. a year. I do not know how on earth it will be possible to compile a community charge register and to collect money in a borough that has unemployment running at one in four males. Since the only real sanction among poorer people against failure to pay the poll tax will be prison, I can imagine the Government declaring yet another amnesty in two or three years. They will make available several thousand places in prison for those who do not pay the community charge.
In introducing this measure, the Government have unleashed a spirit which will haunt them from the beginning to the end of this Parliament. My forecast is that the Government will drop the proposed community


charge, but, if they do not, their victory on the community charge will, if nothing else happens, herald a defeat for them at the next election.
The Government have go away with actions against the homeless because the homeless are a minority; actions against the unemployed because the unemployed and a minority; and action against the poor because the poor are a minority. For the first time they have made the mistake of introducing a measure which has the ability to offend the majority, instead of simply penalising the minority. My view is that this measure is doomed to defeat. But, if I am wrong about that, the Government are doomed to defeat on this issue alone.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) on having secured this debate at a relatively reasonable hour. The debate has been notable for the excellent maiden speeches from the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). I hope to have time to refer to them later in my speech.
This has been a serious debate about one of the central major reforms being brought forward in this Parliament—the future financing of local government, a system which consumes about one quarter of total public expenditure and touches the life of every citizen. It is not surprising that it warrants serious debate.
After listening to the debate, the question I ask is: do we want local government to have a future? I hope that all those who have participated in the debate would agree with me that we do, but I have to tell hon. Members that many outsiders are fed up with local government as it is now and would like to see it stripped of its revenue—raising powers, with local services adminstered more along the lines of health authorities. As recently as last Friday a letter published in the Financial Times advocated that course of action. It stated:
So why on earth should local government have separate revenue-raising powers—whether by rates or otherwise? To ensure efficiency, councils should be cost centres with budget allocations made by central government, who in turn levy and collect tax revenue. Giving local authorities a set sum would concentrate their minds wonderfully on setting priorities and getting value for money. And it would quickly allow electors to judge which party could produce most for their money.
I do not agree with that recipe, because I do not believe in the centralisation of power and direction of local government in that way. Hon. Members continue to defend the indefensible in the way that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has just been doing. He ignored the fact that Hackney is overspending £513 per adult, referred to Wandsworth, but quietly omitted to refer to the fact that the figures he quoted take no account of the situation where ILEA is overspending by £250 per adult in inner London. That is the extent of overspending against assessed need. If the authorities spent in accordance with their assessed need on the exemplifications for the current year, the community charge would have to be only £178 per adult, and that would be subject to rebate in certain circumstances.
I submit to all true friends of local government that our fundamental reforms of the way in which local government is paid for offer the last hope of saving local government. That may sound dramatic, but it is meant to be. Our system of local government finance is in an advanced state of senility and decay. It is antiquated, arbitrary and incomprehensible.
In preparing for tonight's debate I asked officials to find out the last occasion on which the present system of local government finance received praise in the House. They have not yet come up with the answer, but it must have been many years ago. That is hardly surprising, especially to those of us who have tried to work with the system, either inside local government or in the Department of the Environment. But now that this radical, reforming Government come to change it, we see that the very injustices of the present system have thrown up pressure groups of vested interests prepared to defend those injustices because they are the beneficiaries of them. That is something to which we shall have to pay careful regard in considering how to deal with the issues raised in this very serious debate. It is important that the fact that Hackney is overspending to the massive extent that it is should be brought home to the general public.
I shall briefly remind the House of how the present system operates. It is based upon rateable values—a notional rental value placed upon property. I say "notional" because, with the decline in the private rent sector, it is far from easy to ascertain true rental values. It assumes that differences in rateable value reflect differences in ability to pay. As has already been pointed out, that is clearly a wrong assumption. It is designed to ensure that a standard rate poundage is charged by a local authority for a standard level of service. Therefore, two identical properties in different parts of the country with the same level of local authority service will pay rate bills proportionate to the rateable value.
Those three principles, upon which the present system is based, are flawed and unfair. That is because rateable values take no account of financial status of the householder. For example, the average rateable value of a three-bedroom semi-detached house in Elmbridge in Surrey is £547; in Craven, in north Yorkshire, the same house would have a rateable value of only £188. That means that if both areas provided the same level of local services with the same degree of efficiency, the Elmbridge ratepayer would face a bill three times as large as the person in Craven. There is no reason to believe that the owners of those two houses would have widely different incomes, as income variations across the country are much smaller than variations in rateable value. If the house in Elmbridge is occupied by a widow on her own and the house in Craven is ooccupied by two adult earners the Surrey widow's per capita rate bill is six times that of each adult earner in Craven.
It is clear, therefore, that ability to pay is not reflected in the present system. Those with the lowest incomes presently pay a higher proportion of their income in rates than those with higher incomes because many of the poorest households in this country are single-parent families or single pensioners.
Is the present system fair? I will give way to any hon. Member who thinks that it is.

Mr. Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Chope: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he suggested, sotto voce, that he would not seek to intervene on the point on which I invited intervention. In the short time that I have left, I hope to deal with the points that he raised earlier.
If we go to a system of revaluation, which is the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire)—and I admire him for his courage in putting it forward—and if that were to reflect the massive changes in turbulence in the capital values of houses currently taking place, there would be consequences for him and his constituents that I doubt he has fully considered. According to the recent Halifax Building Society house price index, house prices have risen nationally by 47·3 per cent. over the past four years, but they have risen by 95·6 per cent. in the Greater London area. Therefore, if there were the same system of equalisation of rate poundages, based upon a system of rateable values based on capital rating revaluation, it would result in massive increases in rate bills in the southeast and London and reductions in rate bills in the north. In the example that I quoted, I have shown that currently the system is loaded in favour of those in the north and against those in the south.

Mr. Squire: As a former chairman of the finance committee of a large local authority when the previous revaluation took place, I am aware of the impact of such a measure. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that a revaluation is neutral and that the significant factor is what a council does with the revised poundage. It is possible to build in safety nets to prevent excessive increases in any one year.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), in an excellent speech, anticipated my hon. Friend's intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury talked about the consequences of a revaluation in Scotland after only seven years, when the valuation of an ordinary house increased from £171 to £726. Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends think that the electoral difficulties that the Conservative party experienced in Scotland were the result of the Government's proposals to introduce a community charge. At the time of the revaluation in Scotland the popularity of the Conservative party had declined to about 13 per cent., but by the time of the general election it had risen to about 24 per cent. I have little doubt that by the time the much fairer community charge comes into operation, our popularity in Scotland will have increased even more.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Chope: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because only a short time remains available to me to reply to the debate.
The present rating system is short on accountability. Councils have the power to increase spending without the responsibility of being properly accountable to those who pay. The non-domestic ratepayer—whether the huge multinational or the cornershop—provides more in rate income than all domestic ratepayers put together. If we add to that grants from national taxpayers, we find hat about three quarters of local authority revenue comes from those with no local vote. The problem goes much deeper than that. because, of 35 million adults in England,

only 18 million are heads of households directly liable to pay rates, of whom only 12 million pay rates in full. There are 3 million who receive partial assistance with their rates and the remaining 3 million receive full relief from their rates bill. In Liverpool, only one voter in four pays rates directly and in full. In Manchester the proportion is even less.
Those figures speak for themselves. A system has developed in which the majority of the electorate can vote for services which they will either not pay for or pay only a small contribution towards. The opportunity that the system presents for abuse is being exploited by the most irresponsible councils. By their actions, they have brought, and are bringing, local government into disrepute.
I shall refer briefly to the two maiden speeches this evening. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East paid a generous tribute to his predecessor, Barry Henderson, whose comradeship and company my right hon. and hon. Friends and I certainly miss. The hon. Gentleman's comments struck a chord with all those who enjoyed the time when Barry was a Member of this place. We look forward to his early return.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East referred to my old university and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), whose excellent speech I have not had the time to take up and do justice to in replying to the debate. It is notable that the fine university of St. Andrew's, despite having a lower Government subsidy now, is doing better than ever before as a result of the long-established principle of self help. I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, North-East that the rating system is thoroughly discredited, but I cannot agree that the only fair system would be a local income tax Such a tax would be a disaster. It would be fiendishly complicated to administer, there would be only 20 million taxpayers and there would have to he an extremely complicated register. I am informed that it would increase income tax by anything between 4p and 11p in the pound, thereby exacerbating unemployment and the poverty trap. It would drive those in work out of the inner cities and he a recipe for even greater dereliction and despair.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East paid a fitting tribute to his predecessor, Ray Ellis. He referred to the mining industry and tantalised us by referring to three hon. Members who were his pupils when he was a school teacher. I hope that we shall be able to guess in due course who they are.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East referred to Claire Staines and asked when her father would be able to get a job. If we bring in the unified business rate, rates in north-east Derbyshire will be reduced by almost 26 per cent., and that will provide a boost to employment opportunities in the area. I think that it is disappointing that the hon. Gentleman did not find time to include that in his speech.
Sadly, I do not have time to deal with all the other issues that have been raised in the debate.

Mr. Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Chope: I refer the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to the yellow booklet, "Paying for Local Government: The Community Charge", published by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office. If the hon. Gentleman reads that carefully, he will discover that it contains most, if not all, of the answers to the questions that he raised in the debate tonight.

Orders of the Day — British Sugar Beet Quota

Mr. Colin Shepherd: It was with some relief that I learnt that the subject that I had chosen had come third in the batting order and we still had not reached midnight before we started this debate.
My purpose in raising the question of the United Kingdom sugar beet quota is to give strength to the elbow of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the next round of negotiations gets under way later this year for new quota levels. As my right hon. Friend was involved in the last set of negotiations, he will recall that quotas were fixed up until 1988 only so that developments in sugar consumption and distribution of producer levies could be assessed. As the Commission is expected to put forward its proposals in September and the House is about to adjourn for the summer, now is the appropriate time for the House to make its views known.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be aware that the present distribution of quota reflects the negotiations between the original six members of the European Community. That quota has never been fully revised to take account of United Kingdom membership. It is also worth noting that major sugar exporters, such as Belgium and France, have quotas equivalent to twice their domestic consumption. The United Kingdom must make do with a quota equal to only half its consumption.
United Kingdom sugar beet growers also recall that, at the review in 1981, they lost the ability to grow beet to the extent of more than 182,000 tonnes of sugar—a reduction of 13·7 per cent. Although it is correct that until that time the United Kingdom sugar beet industry did not fulfil its quota, for a variety of reasons, the substantial investment made by the industry in the past 10 years has meant that the United Kingdom quota has been met in full every year since 1981. There is now capacity to produce 1·5 million tonnes. Moreover, British Sugar is arguably the most cost-efficient producer in Europe.
In the light of that and the geographical factor that British Sugar is located in one of the few countries in which there is likely to be a substantial increase in sugar usage by the chemical industry, surely it is right to argue for the introduction of a margin of flexibility in the quota system to allow for differing efficiencies and demand prospects, and to reflect British circumstances.
With regard to demand prospects, the United Kingdom has one of the largest chemical industries in Europe. It is a world leader in the development of biotechnology. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that biotechnology is one of the leading edge technologies in which an advanced industrial nation such as Britain cannot afford to fall behind.
It is clear that the European Commission recognises the importance of encouraging biotechnology, from the introduction of its scheme to make sugar available at close to world prices for new chemical industry developments. As anticipated, the chemical industry has waited for the greatest price reductions before buying sugar in any quantity. That quantity is now starting to increase.
The European chemical industry forecasts a sixfold increase from the present sugar usage of 80,000 tonnes annually to a new level of 500,000 tonnes in the early

1990s. The Chemical Industries Association Limited has estimated that its current usage of 25,000 tonnes will increase to 150,000 during the same period.
I believe that ICI is investigating the feasibility of a plant in Britain to manufacture biodegradable plastic, and that Sturge is currently investing some £30 million in a new citric acid manufacturing facility at Selby in Yorkshire. Other plans for diversification by British Sugar, using sugar as a base, are as widespread as to include animal and food proteins, biodegradable plastics, polymer bulking agents, natural flavours, natural pharmaceuticals and substitutes for oil-based materials used in the production of polyurethane and bakelite.
As a major part of Europe's biotechnical research takes place within the United Kingdom, it will be especially galling if, as a consequence of there being no spare domestically produced sugar, the actual physical facility for making the product of that research is to end up being located other than in the United Kingdom. Given the size of the potential investment, the fear must be that the chemical industry will locate bulk manufacturing facilities on the continent, where there is a great deal of spare sugar. Apart from the high unit values low volume products, the industry will not be able to afford to transport sugar from the continent because of the significance of the sugar costs in the final pricing of the high volumes low unit value bulk products. Again, from a security of supply standpoint, the United Kingdom chemical industry would not want to be dependent on imported sugar when, by locating in France or Belgium, it can be assured of as much sugar as it will need.
On the distribution of producer levies, it is clear that the present position is grotesquely inequitable to the United Kingdom. As the United Kingdom does not export any of its domestically produced quota sugar, which attacts an export refund, the United Kingdom industry receives no rebate or return on its levy payments. Such exports as the United Kingdom industry makes are re-exports of sugar that has already been imported from the continent. Although statistically it has been needed for the United Kingdom sugar users, who themselves need to be assured of the continuity of supply. Therefore, in effect the United Kingdom's levy payments go to finance the export of surplus sugar by the Community's net sugar exporters, France, Belgium, Germany the Netherlands and Denmark.
Our United Kingdom levies represent a transfer from Britain, whose beet quota is equivalent to only half its consumption, to countries such as France and Belgium, whose quotas are twice their consumption. Britain does not contribute to the Community's surplus of quota sugar, but ends up paying some 9 per cent. of the levies raised from the EEC sugar industry, whereas Belgium, for example, produces 14·5 per cent. of the surplus, while paying only 7·5 per cent. of the producer levies. That is the basis of assessing the United Kingdom's position as being grotesque in respect of producer levies.
It is interesting to note the tight position of the United Kingdom's supply position for sugar. In recent years, as British Sugar has demonstrated its ability consistently to fulfil its production quotas, industrial sugar users have felt able to reduce their requirements for sugar imported from the rest of the continent and the Community. In the past five years that has halved to just over 80,000 tonnes, and over the same period there has been a dramatic reduction in the "free" sugar stocks in Britain, from almost 200,000


tonnes to an anticipated 49,000 tonnes at the end of this season. As a result, British Sugar tells me that it is operating with barely adequate stocks to cover normal demand before the new season's crop becomes available. To put that into context, that anticipated 49,000 tonnes is equivalent to about one week's sugar consumption. That is hardly an adequate safety margin.
What is boils down to is that the tightness of the United Kingdom's supply situation for sugar means that their is no scope for supplying new chemical industry demands from domestic production without taking sugar from existing users. This has to be an unacceptable position for the United Kingdom to be placed in.
Reasonable fears have been expressed that an increase in the United Kingdom sugar beet production would prejudice the position of African, Caribbean and Pacific sugar in the British market. While it is interesting to note that five of the 16 ACP states with current sugar quotas must import sugar from the world market in order to release their domesic product to fulfil their preferential quotas in the EEC, it is also the case that the ACP quota has been enshrined in the Lomé Convention and can be changed only by political decision by all signatories to the convention. It is also the case that the British beet quota is being fully filled by domestic production, with there being yet additional capacity.
However, it is important to point out that an increase in the United Kingdom quota to cater for the needs of the emerging bio-technical industries depends on the continuation of the ACP quota at its current level. If the quota decreases, any increase in the beet quota will have to be diverted to traditional sugar users to make up the shortfall, thus destroying the security of supply that the chemical industry will require if it is to set up plants in the United Kingdom in the first place.
British Sugar has assured the Government that it will export any new quota sugar for which the expected increase in chemical industry demand has not yet come through. It would not be placed on the British market so as to weaken the position of ACP sugar. British Sugar's track record on exports is encouraging, in that during the early 1980s a surplus in the United Kingdom market brought about by imports from the continent was successfully exported by British Sugar without disturbing the position of ACP sugar in the market.
The value of a comparatively small increase in the United Kingom sugar beet quota is considerable to the United Kingdom. In industrial terms, the bio-technology prize must not be allowed to slip away. In agricultural terms, sugar beet production is the second most profitable, large-scale arable crop and is the most consistent in its profitability. It forms an alternative to other crops, which is of inestimable value for the rural economy. Many hon. Members present have constituents such as mine which depend on the continued development of the sugar beet crop and they would welcome the ability to produce a little more.
In employment terms, it is interesting to note that the University of East Anglia estimates that for each job in British Sugar another seven jobs are supported in the rest of the economy, and that for every 100 tonnes included in the quota, three jobs will be created. That shows that if we could get a further 150,000 tonnes, another 4,500 jobs in the sugar industry would be created even before we consider the ramifications for the biotechnological industries.
In terms of fairness in respect of the levy position, the case for an increase is, again, strong. The decision in 1985 to fix quotas up to 1988 only has, in the light of developments both in the market and technology, been shown to have been right. Now is the time to ensure that the United Kingdom has a fair opportunity to share in these developments as they progress, and a relatively modest increase in quota will be helpful in achieving just that. I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and our right hon. Friend the Minister will be determined to address this problem in the negotiations to come.

Mr. Michael Lord: I should like to stress the need for the extra quota of 150,000 tonnes to come to the United Kingdom. No hon. Member can be unaware of the problems facing agriculture in all sorts of ways or of the problems of surplus and the need for us to find alternative crops. Farmers desperately need to grow a crop which they can grow well, which is not in surplus and which has great potential. So far as I can see, sugar beet appears to fit the bill.
I am greatly concerned at the moment about agriculture in general, because I think that the industry has reached a point at which it will have to decide what direction it must take. I believe that all industries go forward or backward and they rarely stay in the same place for very long. Agriculture is now in grave danger. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) has explained, so much in the rural areas depends on agriculture, not just directly on farming, but on all the associated industries. It is crucial that farming should continue and it is no more crucial than in the area that I represent and in East Anglia where farmers are very worried about the direction which farming might take.
Agriculture has been an object lesson in efficiency and it stands comparison with any other industry. I want to refer to my experience in the sugar beet industry. I do net know how many other hon. Members share my experience, but I remember many years ago walking behind a sugar beet drill as the seeds were put in and the drill was drawn by a marvellous grey Percheron. Grey I may be, but I am not too old to remember that: indeed, it did not happen so long ago. That gives us some idea of the strides made by the industry, which is the most efficient in Europe and probably the most efficient in the world.
Like an efficient engine, I believe that the industry is now up against the buffers of the common agricultural policy and it badly needs new outlets and ideas. We cannot get away from the fact that the medium in which agriculture works is soil. Farmers must grow crops. Yes, there may be alternative enterprises such as forestry and woodland and nothing could be nearer to my heart with my experience and fondness for trees than for us to grow more trees in this country. That is a good idea, but it is a long-term prospect. Other enterprises must also be considered because farmers now must consider themselves as business men as well as farmers. They must apply themelves to other alternatives and I am sure that they are doing that. Unless large quantities of land are taken permanently out of agriculture for housing, which on any kind of scale would be extremely ill-advised, land must grow crops.
The combination of the new biotechnology involving sugar capable of giving us biodegradable products is heaven-sent for those of us who care about the environment, commerce and jobs. The developments are extremely exciting for both those areas and we must grasp the opportunities with both hands.
I want to consider briefly the question of fairness. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford drew the Minister's attention to the history of quotas and the present imbalances and inequalitities in the EEC. Nothing incenses our farmers more than a sense of injustice and that sense of injustice is all too often engendered by the machinations of the CAP. I understand the great difficulties facing the Minister, given the overall surplus of sugar in the EEC. I urge the Minister and his team to fight for our farmers, for fairness and for an increased quota when they go to Europe.

Mr. Geraint Howells: As far as I am aware, there are no sugar beet growers in Wales—although there may be a few. Many of us who farm in the Principality, however, are dependent on sugar beet to feed our sheep in the winter. It has proved a very successful method of feeding them during the hard months that we get on the hills.
My purpose in taking part in tonight's debate is to support the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), who, I think, has made a very good plea on behalf of this country's sugar beet growers. I should like to ask the Minister a few probing questions. Many farmers in west Wales are very worried about the present milk quotas. They believe that British farmers are not competing on equal terms. I want to ask the Minister this question: do British sugar beet growers compete on equal terms with their counterparts in the EEC?
I believe that the Minister's negotiations and deliberations will succeed in persuading the other EEC Ministers to give British farmers an extra quota. But let me ask a question similar to those I have asked on milk before. If a young farmer in this country was very keen to start growing sugar beet, is there a quota that he could get from the British Sugar Corporation? I believe that there are many young entrants into farming, and that we should be able to help them. There should be an extra quota somewhere within the system to help youngsters who want to start on their own.
However, the main question is parity within the Community. I hope that, by saying a few words tonight, those of us who are far away from the sugar beet growing area of this country can help those who, one day, may in turn help the dairy farmers of west Wales when they too are in need.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) has correctly identified the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) so ably outlined in his excellent introductory speech. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate.
We have had the opportunity from time to time to consider sugar beet production in this country, and I have

had the privilege of addressing the house on the subject before. I now have interests to declare: the British Sugar Corporation factory in Brigg, which is the largest employer of labour in the town, and the large number of sugar beet farmers in my constituency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford said, for every one person employed in a British Sugar Corporation factory, up to seven jobs have been derived in the country's sugar factories. Sugar beet farming is an important part of the rural economy for many of us who are here this evening.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North made a very important point. I have a table, of which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary—who, I am delighted to see, will respond to the debate—will be aware. It is a simple chart showing EEC beet sugar production quotas as a proportion of consumption by member states. The figure that jumps out at me—this is something that I have never been able to understand—is the quota in the United Kingdom: 1,144,000 tonnes of white sugar. Yet United Kingdom consumption is 2,256,000 tonnes. Quota represents only 50·7 per cent. of consumption. I am referring to beet sugar. However, as a percentage of consumption, the quota is 222 per cent. In France it is 199·5 per cent. Therefore, the case for a fair deal for the British sugar producer, sugar beet farmer and sugar factories is overwhelming. Britain is producing only 50 per cent. of its sugar quota. Therefore, equity demands that British Ministers should speak up for the British sugar beet industry in the European Community. When the United Kingdom quota is renegotiated, it is imperative that British Ministers should bang the table hard for the United Kingdom sugar producer and the beet farmer.
My hon. Friends have already said that the sugar beet industry's request is for a modest increase of 150,000 tonnes in the United Kingdom quota. Ministers should put such a reasonable and modest demand before the Council of Ministers on the ground that, in equity, the imbalance in the United Kingdom's quota, compared with the rest of Europe, should be rectified. Indeed, it is vital that Ministers should do so because the United Kingdom is the only major European Community country whose sugar beet production quota is less than its sugar consumption.
Even allowing for imports of ACP sugar, the United Kingdom is barely self-sufficient at the existing levels of sugar consumption. However, the United Kingdom is facing an important increase in sugar consumption, because of the needs of the chemical industry, based on its European leadership in biotechnology. I enjoy the privilege of having an ICI subsidiary factory in my constituency. Together with other chemical industries in this country, ICI wants to play a leading role in biotechnology. However, it must know that beet sugar will be available so that it may make the long-term investment that is required. The United Kingdom has been denied the marginal increase in its sugar quota that it needs to meet this genuine new demand, while other EEC countries, whose needs are not so great, had major surpluses of quota sugar which had to be exported. The United Kingdom was obliged to fund those exports through its producer levy contributions.
The United Kingdom sugar beet industry is looking for fair treatment in Europe so that it is not denied the opportunity to create a new chemical industry, based on biotechnology at home. I join my hon. friends and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North in asking


the Minister, who is a first-rate Minister, and his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who have done a superb job on behalf of British agriculture in the past, to ask for a modest quota increase of 150,000 tonnes to cater for this new use.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) declared his interest, largely in a sugar beet refinery. As a constituency Member. I must declare mine. The cane sugar refinery at Silvertown in Newham, east London, refines no fewer than 1 million tonnes of cane sugar a year, which is nearly equivalent to the whole of the beet sugar production—approximately 1·2 million tonnes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who represents the only other cane sugar refinery in the United Kingdom, would have been here tonight, but unfortunately he is unwell. His case would have been similar to mine.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) asked why we produce only half the sugar that we consume. The answer is that historically—and I believe rightly—there has been a national policy since the early 1930s to produce sugar in this country from sugar beet instead of relying wholly. as we did, on Commonwealth imports. That balanced arrangement continued successfully until 1974, when, having entered the EEC the year before, the Commonwealth sugar arrangement fell and new arrangements had to be made. The quota arrangements, of which Conservative Members have made some justifiable criticisms, came into vogue at that time.
I shall now make a point with which I am sure Conservative Members will agree. Britain is the only country in the EEC that imports large quantities of cane sugar. France imports only a small amount from its Departement Outre Mer, which for fixing purposes is part of domestic France, although that is the West Indies. We do that for a number of reasons. First, we do it as a moral responsibility to our overseas partners in the Commonwealth and the Third world. That is recognised throughout the EEC, and I am glad to see Conservative Members nodding in agreement. It is an undertaking on behalf of the EEC, although we have a part to play in it.
Employment in the cane sugar refining industry in the ports has been reinforced by two resolutions of the House: first, on 11 November 1974; and secondly in December 1985. The first resolution emphasized:
The continued existence of and employment in the port sugar refining industry of the United Kingdom, or for securing long-term supplies of domestically refined cane sugar at a fair price to consumer and producer.
That was reinforced by a resolution of the House on 2 December 1985 in an amendment that was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow to
take account of the interests of both producers and users of the products concerned and fulfil the objectives set out in the Resolution of the House relating to sugar supplies of 11 November 1974.
The hon. Member for Hereford dwelt on this matter and rightly reminded the House that part of the Lomé arrangement—it is an adjunct to the renewable treaty—is the arrangement to which I have referred.
The problem with what Conservative Members have said is that there appears to be a statistical imbalance between what is open to British agriculture and what is

open to the French in particular. The problem is compounded by the figures. As I understand it. EEC production of beet sugar is about 13·6 million tonnes in white sugar equivalents, but the consumption, including that of the United Kingdom, is only 10·6 tonnes. In other words, there is a surplus production of about 3 million tonnes, which is just under three times the amount of imported cane sugar. While there is criticism from some European beet farmers of cane imports, it is a relatively small proportion, not only of the consumption of the EEC but of the total available surplus.
The problem is how to maintain our moral responsibility and the long-term agreement to which we are all committed; provide pricing arrangements for the refiner's margin and the extra cost of shipping the cane from places such as Fiji, Mauritius, Jamaica and other Commonwealth friends, and at the same time make that sugar marketable at a price that is comparable to the beet price in European and United Kingdom markets. That is one of the other aspects of the matter that the Minister will have to see to. Not only is he battling for greater beet quotas; he is having to follow that resolution of the House and the moral responsibility to which the EEC agrees to ensure the refiner's margin. The Minister is aware of that, and the debate is not specifically about cane sugar, so I shall not pursue that matter. I am sure that the Minister will renew the Government's commitment to maintain that margin so that the structure continues.
Conservative Members who represent beet-growing areas put the case fairly in some respects. We must recognise that there is a certain resistance, perhaps from those who ultimately pay or consume, to increasing the amount of beet sugar that goes into chemical stock above the present surplus. Some people might think that it is not good policy, especially in the northern parts of Europe, where there is less sunshine, to grow beet sugar that is refined, at some expense, and then becomes chemical feedstock. This is a little unusual from the point of view of conservation and, ultimately, of the good use of land. I know that there are surpluses, but Conservative Members face the problem of persuading our continental "partners" that it is their surplus that should be used for that burgeoning chemical use about which we have all heard, and that they should voluntarily transfer some of their surplus beet production to the United Kingdom.
Why would those continental countries give up any of their existing national quotas to increase United Kingdom acreage when they already have a surplus? In equity, of course, they should, but I suppose that equity is the United Kingdom's strongest argument. The EEC is on a ratchet. The answer to the questions aked by some Conservative Members lies in the fact that, even before Britain became a member of the EEC, the Agriculture Ministers built in a surplus when the beet quotas were agreed. Instead of each national arrangement balancing out, as the United. Kingdom's wisely did under the Williams arrangements from the 1930s, other countries, especially France, had a surplus that was built in by a political arrangement. I believe that the facts will show that that is so. It is at least an argument why, in equity, British beet producers should share in the ill-distribution made at the beginning. especially as we are discharging our responsibility, and wish to continue to do so, to the Third world and our Commonwealth colleagues.
The moral commitment to the Third world is shared by us all. The pricing arrangements to assure the margin for


cane sugar refiners at the ports and the price paid to our Commonwealth producers so that they can continue to produce must be viable. It is no use having a quota of 1·3 million tonnes if the price prevents our Commonwealth colleagues from producing. At the same time, we should promote an agricultural regime that is equitable in the sense that I have outlined. I hope that in Brussels the Minister will respond to his hon. Friend's requests and ensure that the refiners' margin and the price paid, not only in this quinquennium but in those that follow, enable the resolutions of the House to be fulfilled.

Mr. Stuart Randall: This is a splendid opportunity to get over the point about biotechnology and the need to increase quotas. We are all here to support our industry, to back Britain and to ensure that, where there is inequity, it is overcome. We know that there are historical reasons for it, but Belgium and France seem to have huge production quotas in proportion to demand which seems unfair.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) said about the increase in demand from biotechnology, which uses sugar for chemical non-food processes. I hope that developments proceed successfully in Britain. I wonder whether there is too much optimism about biotechnology as the EC proposals amount to only 300,000 tonnes by 1992, which is a tiny increase. There are problems to overcome in biotechnology, but I am glad to hear that we have a British company doing research.
Although the rate of development might not be as rapid as many people expect, the opportunity for job creation is important and welcome. I wondered whether there was some devious motive behind the debate, but the hon. Member for Hereford made a straightforward case. I am anxious that there should not be pressure on ACP imports of cane sugar in the negotiations.
The ACP countries depend on exports of about 1.1 million tonnes of cane to the EC for a considerable amount of foreign exchange. They are principally the West Indies, Fiji and Mauritius. I should like the Minister to give a commitment that nothing in the negotiations could lead to that figure being reduced. I appreciate that the levels were established under Lomé, but I should like an assurance that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the EC are not thinking along those lines.

Mr. Michael Brown: I can probably reassure the hon. Gentleman. He will probably realise that the Lomé convention can be changed only with the agreement of all the signatories to the convention. That may give him the reassurance that he seeks.

Mr. Randall: I appreciate that that is the mechanism, but all things can be changed. I ask the Minister for an assurance that that sort of activity, or the lifting of the foundation stones, will not take place because of the inequities that exist and, therefore, the pressures from our own industry. My main concern is for the ACPs, the poorer countries of the Third world, and whether we are being optimistic about the effect of biotechnology and of those small quota arrangements.
British Sugar has had a superb opportunity to put its case. A company does not usually have the opportunity of

having a one-and-a-half hour debate on a matter of this sort. Obviously everyone except myself has been briefed up to the eyeballs. The important thing is to make sure that we back our own industry and that opportunities are created for developing it. The Opposition will be supporting it.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: We all share the concern voiced by the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the ACP or Third-world countries. We realise that there is a moral and legal obligation towards them, but one thing that stands out sharply, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), is that, of the 16 ACP countries, five have to import sugar from the world market to match their share of EC quota. That is outrageous and something ought to be done about it. When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will be able to deal with that. Why are we being so weak and pathetic over that matter? It is costing many jobs in this country. We obviously have that moral obligation. No one here wants to sabotage the Lomé convention. We realise the importance of it, particularly so far as jobs in Newham, South are concerned. I have a sugar factory in my constituency, and I was interested to hear the figures given by the hon. Member for Newham, South.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford on securing the debate.
I do not think that we have been briefed up to the eyeballs. I certainly have not been briefed at all. I do not know where the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West got the idea that it was all a put-up job. Certainly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford made about the number of jobs being created being a factor of seven for every job in British Sugar would mean that in my constituency British Sugar either directly or indirectly in the past 20 years or so, has created more than 1,400 jobs, which is a very considerable input into the local economy. That shows how important the whole area is to Norfolk, and to west Norfolk in particular where many small farmers at the moment rely to a large extent on sugar beet. I am talking about the smaller farmers because the larger farmers certainly have more of a cushion to survive difficult times. People seem to think of Norfolk as being a county of large farmers, but there are many small farmers who rely to a considerable degree on sugar beet. If they could be allowed to grow just a little bit more, it would make a tremendous difference.
We had an interesting tour de force by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), who took us down memory lane. My memory does not extend that far, although the grey hairs are coming. It was a thoughtful and penetrating speech that reflected the concern of many of us on the Government side of the House for farmers in our constituencies, who are the fabric of rural constituencies, and for jobs in rural areas. Even in Norfolk where there are many light manufacturing industries and where there is a big growth in the service and tourist sectors, a large number of jobs are still totally dependent on agriculture. We have heard of many different schemes and ideas. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central mentioned some of the ideas put forward by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. One thing


that it could do that would make a profound difference to the confidence of farmers throughout the country especially in areas where a lot of sugar beet is grown would be to increase, even modestly the United Kingdom quota. I hope that the Minister will take that on board. At one stroke he could achieve an enormous amount. In that one small stroke he could achieve more than would be achieved by any number of set asides, schemes to encourage forestry or schemes to encourage amenity and small businesses in rural areas, laudable though those schemes may be. I urge that on him to a great extent.
The case is strong. One has to bear in mind the points that have been made already about where the United Kingdom stands in relation to other European countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes quoted an interesting set of figures. I do not know where he got the table from. He must be the only one who came here with a brief. The figures show the disadvantage at which the United Kingdom finds itself. We must bear in mind the fact that in 1981 the United Kingdom suffered a cut on the most spurious of grounds. I have never quite been able to work out why the United Kingdom suffered that cut. However, it was manifestly unfair, and surely now the time has come to reverse that.
The hon. Member for Newham, South mentioned the dilemma in which the EEC finds itself in terms of equity and how it would be equitable for European farmers to give up quota to the United Kingdom. That is probably pie in the sky. However, if there is an increase in quotas overall it will not cost the EEC anything at all. Of all the agricultural regimes in the common agricultural policy, the one that is totally self-financing is the sugar beet regime. Therefore, a small increase for the United Kingdom, and perhaps a small increase for other EEC countries, would not cost the national taxpayer or the EEC taxpayer one penny. The regime has been cleverly tailored so that it is entirely self-financing.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman may be correct, but I understood that there was a storage levy. If there is greater production of beet in the whole Community, the levy for overall storage from one campaign to the next might wit go up. I may be wrong about that. I am willing to concede that in terms of export restitution it is different, but there is quite a bit of public money involved if one looks at the matter in overall terms.

Mr. Bellingham: I do not know the exact answer to that. The Minister may be able to put us right but my understanding is that, given the situation raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South, it would be British Sugar that would be paying more. It would greatly reduce its overall profit.

Mr. Tim Boswell: It is a producer levy.

Mr. Bellingham: My hon. Friend is right. The taxpayer would not have to dip into his pocket any more if there was an increase in quota.
The points about the chemical and biochemical industry have been made clearly. There is a great opportunity for the United Kingdom in biotechnology. If plants were located away from the United Kingdom in Europe on account of that fact that there was not a ready supply of sugar available on the doorsteps of the plants that would be a tragedy. I understand that the United Kingdom Chemical Industries Association has predicted

a six-fold increase in the need for sugar from roughly 15,000 tonnes to getting on for over 125,000 tonnes per year by 1991. That is a big increase.
On all those points we have a strong case. I join hon. Members in urging the Minister to push the United Kingdom case as hard as possible. He should kick over traces, sit on the table—not break it—and do his best to put the case for the United Kingdom farmer. He should bear in mind that he could do more good by a modest increase in the United Kingdom beet quota than a whole panoply of other measures. I hope that he takes that on board.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I begin my remarks by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on introducing the debate, on his timing and on the substance of his speech. It is appropriate that we should encourage the Government to address such matters in good time before the negotiations take place and before the Commission makes its proposals. I, too, say to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that the House has no interest in creating a conflict of interest between beet growers and the cane industry. It is essential to proceed on the basis of mutual interest.
As to who was or was not briefed, there may have been certain domestic difficulties to be sorted out amongst Opposition Members. I do not know whether that had anything to do with the matter. My basic interest derives from some years back through my having worked with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as its special advisor. Some hon. Members will know that I am also a farmer, but I am not a beet farmer. My family gave up beet farming roughly at the time when my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) was plodding behind his Percheron. We cut the beet tops off by hand, but we gave it up a long time ago.
I hope that it reinforces the points that need to be made if I tell the House that we in Daventry have a virtually insignificant constituency interest in beet growing, lying as we do between the eastern factories of Peterborough and the west midlands. Little beet is grown at any one time in my patch. Nevertheless, for many reasons, we have a proper interest in the subject of the debate. The first reason, as some hon. Members have said, relates to employment, which affects us all. The second reason is the importance of creating and sustaining as many hectares of arable land for alternative uses to cereal production as we possibly can. That goes to the heart of the need to expand our beet quota when we can do so.
There are two specific points. The first was eloquently touched upon by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells). He mentioned the benefits to the farming and livestock industry, which is or interest to me also, in having a supply of beet pulp. British Sugar is the third largest manufacturer of animal feedstuffs in the country—that fact surprised me—and about 85 per cent. of its total production now goes outside beet growers to other livestock farmers. It is as important to my farmers as it is for people in the eastern counties that as much feed as possible should be available. It is an excellent feed.
It is important for the whole industry to draw on the example of plants such as the ABR chemicals plant at Corby, which is just outside my constituency. That plant. is able to use modern technology to separate wheat


feedstock, make the best product and add value to it. That is highly relevant to increasing farmers' returns and the saleability of their product. As in Corby, modern developments in biotechnology in beet production, sugar and related products are highly relevant to the tenor of agriculture.
There is an unfortunate background to the negotiations. At the time of the 1980 negotiations and the 1981 quota quinquennium, this was the worst possible background against which to conduct a European negotiation. There were two reasons: first, we tended to decline as a producing country during the immediately preceding years, and we threw away one of our negotiating counters. Secondly, at that time and since, a high proportion of the European beet crop had to be exported. Therefore, it was a natural ploy that was carried out, to deprive us of a proportion of our quota. The industry has not yet recovered from that blow.
In the meanwhile, we have two major encouraging changes in the situation. First, the British beet industry and sugar industry have had good performances over the past quinquennium in fulfilling their quota, increasing their productivity and reducing their costs. The second change, which we should take back to Europe, is that we now find the potential for an enlargement of the whole market.
When I was in MAFF I was worried about the impact of concern about diet and health on the consumption of raw sugar. It now seems to have stabilised in a healthy way and there is the possibility of an additional demand for new uses. Europe recognised the new situation to some extent by the introduction last year of provisions for chemical sugar, which recognises the principle that new industries based on new technology should, wherever possible, take place and be founded within the Community, rather than abroad, exporting products into the Community.
We are asking the Government to work on behalf of the industry to see that Britain gets its proper share of the action of these new developments. Nobody can be certain of the exact level or timing of them—it may well be that quotas will have to be adjusted or modified as they develop. We cannot anticipate how far they will go. If they go slowly, there must be some scope for modulation, but the principle must be established that we need to go forward as the European sugar industry goes forward.
We have two powerful moral claims on that. First, we are not talking about increasing over our historic quota level; we are talking about working towards a reestablishment of our historic quota. We lost 182,000 tonnes, and the British Sugar Corporation is not indenting for more than 150,000 tonnes, so we are in no sense going above our historic quota. The second point, which has been commented upon inadequately, is that the British consumption of sugar is the largest in the Community. We are significant users of sugar and we have a strong base on which to make our claim.
My hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues must go in to bat on our behalf on the sugar quota. We have a similar kind of European negotiation on a smaller scale and in microcosm to the issues which have been tackled on a wider scale in relation to the European budget by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. She fought both for the equity of the situation and within the context of

realism. We are asking the Minister to undertake to go in and understand the reality of the situation and to understand that we did lose ground, but there is now the possibility of the market widening so that we can make a claim to gain more ground, or to regain ground. We must put these points firmly, together with the compelling point of fairness and to stand up for the British industry, which has a rightful claim.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on initiating the debate and I congratulate everybody who has taken part in it. It is flattering to me to see that they are all still in the House, and it must be of great satisfaction to the sugar industry, which is delighted that my hon. Friend has raised the subject tonight.
British sugar beet growers and British Sugar, which processes their beet, have a legitimate interest in maximising production and marketing of this profitable crop for our domestic market. The Government fully share the desire of the House to have a strong and prosperous British sugar beet industry, and we will continue to work for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), in his usual forthright manner, urged me to work for that, and I can assure him that that is what we will do.
However, that is not the only interest that the Government have to consider. We also take pride in ensuring fulfilment of our long-standing Community commitment to import cane sugar from producers in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries—ACP countries. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who apologised for the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—we wish him a speedy recovery—made a strong speech on behalf of the ACP countries, to which I will refer as I go through the speech I wrote before I heard the speeches tonight. Fortunately—touch wood—it fits fairly well. The House is going to get it—it fits, and that is better than usual from either this or the other side of the House.
We need a viable cane refining industry, and that industry is itself an important source of employment and revenue, as the hon. Member for Newham, South said. We must also have regard to the interests of British food manufacturers and consumers in supplies of sugar at competitive prices. Finally, we need to take account of the concern of sugar producers throughout the world—mostly in developing countries, including those who do not enjoy privileged access to the Community—at the volume of supplies on the world market. Clearly, the Government's policy on the EEC sugar regime must strike a fair balance between those interests, and that is what we have striven to do in the past.
I wish to say a word about someone who has not been mentioned often tonight—the consumer. Two weeks ago, we finally reached agreement on CAP support prices for 1987–88. For sugar beet, common prices were frozen for the fourth successive year. Over the same four-year period, there has been an increase of just over 1 per cent. in the effective common support price for white sugar. In real terms, the support price for white sugar in the United Kingdom has fallen by more than 10 per cent. since July


1983. That is, of course, less satisfactory to growers. However, even my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who is always keen to ensure that his constituents are well rewarded, is not complaining about the income of sugar beet growers. The consumer must be very pleased that the price has remained steady. Sugar remains a relatively profitable crop with available quota keenly sought after, and growers will now have the benefit of the green pound devaluation.
There is to be a review of the Community regime in the autumn, as a direct result of this Government's pressure. Specifically, the Community will need to determine in the review both the A and B quotas for the period 1988–89 and 1990–91 inclusive and the incidence of the various production levies, which are designed to recoup from growers and processors the cost of supporting the Community sugar market. We do not know at this stage, and may not know for some months, what proposals the Commission will put forward on those and other relevant issues. Clearly, therefore, I am in no position to set out the Government's policy on the review. However, I will try to give some indications of our attitude on a number of the points raised tonight.
First, we should consider the balance of supply and demand in the Community of 12 as a whole. Production within both A and B quotas, together with the committed supplies from ACP countries, far outstrips the market available within the Community. The EEC is having to export about 3 million tonnes of quota sugar a year, and these exports can be made only with the aid of large subsidies. The export subsidy has averaged nearly £300 per tonne in the past year, which is about two and a half times the world price. It is true that the Community beet growers and processors themselves meet most of the cost of these exports through the levy system, and it occurred to me as the hon. Member for Newham, South was speaking that they may have done that originally because they knew that they would be in surplus and that it might be a good way of getting rid of surpluses. I am not sure that that is true and. as I have said, it was merely a thought that occurred to me as I was listening to the hon. Gentleman.
Community sugar exports amount to about a fifth of the free world sugar market, which is the market not covered by special arrangements such as the ACP countries enjoy in the Community or by bilateral contracts. We cannot ignore the effect of these exports on world markets.
Against this background there can clearly be no case for any increase in the overall Community sugar quotas. Indeed, there is a case that these quotas should be reduced, and at the previous review in 1985 we proposed that the overall quotas should be reduced. British Sugar pressed for an increase in its quota but that was not negotiated because, among other things, of the serious position of the sugar market. Quotas for all member states were therefore left unchanged for two years. In addition, an elimination levy was introduced to clear the deficit on the export refund levy account that had built up from 1981 to 1986, and this was shared among member states to our basic advantage. That brings us to the 1987 review and this debate.
At the 1985 review we proposed that overall quotas should be reduced and that this should be achieved by means of a more equitable allocation of B quotas on a standard percentage of the A quotas for all member states in place of the present allocation, which ranges from 10 per

cent. for some member states, including the United Kingdom, up to 30 per cent. for others. The Commission and most other member states, however, were strongly opposed to any reallocation of quotas. I have no reason to believe that they will change their minds despite what has been said during this debate, including the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). My hon. Friend has made two successive speeches in the Chamber without interruption, and that must he a record. His first contribution was, of course, a maiden speech. The Government will do their best to ensure that the allocation is changed.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) asked about the United Kingdom's position. When quotas were last reallocated in 1981, the changes were made on the basis of past production. Our production in the base period had been adversely affected by climate and other factors, so our quota, especially our B quota, is less than it might otherwise have been. As a result, although we are fully producing our A and B quotas, there is little if any surplus in the United Kingdom over our domestic requirements.
I have been asked whether the machinery of the sugar quota operates differently from the milk quota, and to the best of my knowledge it does.
When a sugar beet farm goes out of production British Sugar takes it back and then reallocates it. That reallocation may lead to new entrants into farming or new entrants into sugar beet production.
Although we are fully producing our A and B quotas, there is little, if any, surplus in the United Kingdom over our domestic requirements. At present, beet sugar production within quotas of 1·144 million tonnes, together with supplies of imported ACP cane sugar of 1·15 million, roughly matches domestic consumption of 2·25 million to 2·3 million tonnes. Taking one year with another, we import about 120,000 tonnes of white sugar from other member states and export slightly more—150.000 tonnes to 200,000 tonnes—of domestically produced white sugar to third countries.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry has already said, there is little likelihood of any increase in domestic demand, but, as mentioned by all hon. Members, there is a growing interest in biotechnology and the biotechnological use of sugar in other products. The hon. Member Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) comes from a part of the world which is accustomed to biotechnology and such chemical plants. We are aware that such industry is found on the north-east side of England. We would like to see the development of this aspect of the chemical industry in the country and especially in the north-east. It is important that, if biotechnology is extended through the use of sugar, we should push as hard as possible for an extra quota to meet that increasing demand.
At present there is no evidence to suggest that the figure covered by the review will exceed 50,000 to 100,000 tonnes a year. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford discussed a level of usage far higher than that.
The level of national quotas is inseparable from that of the level of the production levy. Under current arrangements, the basic A quota is subject to a maximum levy of 2 per cent. of the intervention price, the B quota to a maximum additional levy of 37½ per cent. This seems appropriate since it is the additional production represented by the B quota which has to be exported and


therefore provides the main additional expenditure. The Government continue to attach importance to maintaining this distinction between the levies applying to the quotas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), who backed his Suffolk horses into the buffers at one time—that will make an interesting mixed metaphor in Hansard—called for an increase in quota. Our quota represents 9 per cent. of EC quota production and we contribute under 6 per cent. of levy. In some ways, that is reassuring.
We must also continue to maintain a reasonable balance between cane and beet producers in the United Kingdom to ensure a secure market for ACP cane sugar. I share the belief of the hon. Member for Newham, south that we must protect the ACP and the jobs that are created by that body.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for the Minister's reassertion of the principle already reasserted by other hon. Members tonight.
I believe that the quotas for producers were introduced in 1981. Cm.167, the Intervention Board report for 1986, showed that the United Kingdom got no less than £86 million from the funds. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) mentioned storage and that report shows that there was a £24 million contribution to the storage levy. Later, I hope that the Minister will check whether all that £86 million comes from the producers' levy, the percentage of which he has just given.

Mr. Thompson: If it was four minutes past one o'clock in a Committee room and the hon. Gentleman started talking about Cm. 167 and going into such details, I would be terrified, but as it is I shall write to him.
We have it very much in mind that ensuring a secure market entails more than ensuring that there remains a place for ACP sugar on the United Kindgom market. In the long term there will be a market in the United Kingdom for ACP sugar only if the Community regime also provides a sufficient margin to enable this raw sugar to be refined. Last year, at United Kingdom insistence, the Commission undertook to carry out a review of that margin and it has yet to submit a report on it to the Council of Ministers. I am glad to say, however, that as part of the price-fixing settlement secured a week ago, the Council formally recognised the need to take measures rapidly to resolve the problem of the refining margin for cane sugar and the Commission undertook to submit proposals to this end. The Government will continue to press for a speedy and satisfactory solution in the interests of the United Kingdom industry and the ACP suppliers.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West asked me about that commitment and I have made that commitment. Hon. Members have said that things change and, of course, the Portuguese entry has changed the entire nature of sugar and sugar refining in the EEC. Nothing stays still and in the machinations of EEC committees, it may be that Portugal's entry will give us a window whereby we may get various adjustments to our satisfaction. I do not know.
I end by assuring the House that I have noted the various points made in this debate; and that the Government will have them very much in their mind when we come to the review of the regime in the autumn. It will continue to be our objective to maintain a fair balance between cane and beet supplies in the United Kingdom—and to secure a fair deal for each in the Community, within the limitations imposed by the Community sugar regime and by the stark fact of a substantial Community—and world—surplus of sugar.

Orders of the Day — Nuclear Arms Control

Mr. Harry Cohen: I am pleased to have obtained this debate on the nuclear arms control negotiations. The current negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union are certainly the most important international negotiations taking place at present. I welcome them and want them to result in a deal that will see a large number of nuclear weapons on the scrap heap. Such a deal, if achieved, looks likely to be only a small step towards ending the nuclear threat that hangs over mankind. It is important that a deal should be achieved and that Britain should work for its achievement. However, beyond that, it is crucial that all our efforts are directed to carrying on the impetus further to reduce and then eliminate nuclear weapons from the world.
Nuclear weapons are a threat to the very existence of mankind. However, that is still not fully understood by some of the Colonel Blimps who are in political and military positions around the world. Among them, I am afraid, is the Prime Minister. The message has still not got across to them that, unlike pre-atomic weapons systems, nuclear weapons have the potential to destroy or blight all life on earth. They leave little opportunity for controlling the situation or for second thoughts.
Mr. Gorbachev, in his February address to the Moscow Forum, said:
The development and subsequent stockpiling of nuclear weapons and of their delivery vehicles beyond all reasonable bounds have made man technically capable of terminating his own existence. The simultaneous accumulation of explosive social material in the world, and attempts to continue tackling forcefully, with stone-age methods, the products of problems of a cardinally altered world make catastrophe highly likely in political terms as well. The militarisation of mentality and of the way of life weakens and even removes altogether any moral inhibitions with regard to nuclear suicide.
We have no right to forget that the first step, which is always the most risky, has already been made. Nuclear weapons have been used against human beings, and used twice. There are dozens—I repeat dozens—of recorded and acknowledged moments when the possibility of using such weapons against other countries was seriously considered … The question stands like this: either political mentality is geared to the requirements of the times or civilisation and life itself on Earth may perish.
The author, Martin Amis, in his "A Blast against the Bomb" essay, published in The Observer on 19 April 1987, put it in an even more startling and brilliant way. He said:
Nuclear war is seven minutes away, and might be over in an afternoon. How far away is nuclear disarmament? We are waiting. And the weapons are waiting.
What is the only provocation that could bring about the use of nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons. What is the priority target for nuclear weapons'? Nuclear weapons. What is the only established defence against nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons. How do we prevent the use of nuclear weapons? By threatening to use nuclear weapons. And we can't get rid of nuclear weapons, because of nuclear weapons. The intransigence, it seems, is a function of the weapons themselves. Nuclear weapons can kill a human being a dozen times over in a dozen different ways; and, before death—like certain spiders, like the headlights of cars—they seem to paralyse.
We must break that paralysis. That is what the people of the world want. The circumstances and the arguments have changed.
In the same article Amis compared his and his father's view—his father representing the outdated Tory notions still prevalent in his House. He states:

My father regards nuclear weapons as an unbudgeable given. They will always be necessary because the Soviets will always have them and the Soviets will always want to enslave the West. Arms agreements are no good because the Soviets will always cheat. Unilateral disarmament equals surrender. And, anyway, it isn't a case of 'red or dead.' The Communist world is itself nuclear-armed and deeply divided: so it is a case of 'red and dead.'
Well, Dead, at any rate, is what this prescription seems to me to promise. Nuclear weapons, my father reminds me, have deterred war for 40 wars. I remind him that no global abattoir presided over the century-long peace that followed Napoleon's discomfiture in 1815. And the trouble with deterrence is that it can't last out the necessary timespan, which is roughly between now and the death of the sun. Already it is falling apart, from within.
When I say that America is as much of a threat as the Soviet Union my father categories me as somone who takes democracy lightly, who takes freedom lightly. But of course it is the weapons themselves that are the threat.
The deterrent myth has also been hammered. Nuclear weapons have not deterred conventional attacks from Vietnam to the Falklands. They could not be used in such circumstances without wreaking enormous destruction and loss of life and without risking a chain reaction which could lead to nuclear retaliation, invoking the Chernobyl effect of mass radiation affecting the whole world—as someone crudely put it, "Peeing into the wind as the effects return to plague all of us."
Mr. Gorbachev has hammered the deterrent myth. He pointed out that the viewpoint which underlies the doctrine of nuclear deterrence was
an evil necessary to prevent a greater evil—war … First, even if we stick to this doctrine, we would have to admit that the 'nuclear safeguard' is not 100 per cent. effective and not termless. It may any time become a death sentence to mankind. The bigger the nuclear arsenals, the less chance they will be kept 'obedient'. Proliferation; increasingly sophisticated nuclear weapons systems, a greater transportation scale and the constant risk of technical error, human failure of malice are all chance factors on which the survival of mankind depends … deterrence … is, in fact, a policy based on intimidation … When threat is a political means, the natural wish is that each such threat should be taken seriously. For that, one has to always hack up threats by definite action … In a historical context that does not reduce the risk of military conflict. In fact, it further increases the risk … the more nuclear weapons there are, the greater risk of a fatal malfunction.
That is the new realism in the Soviet Union based on the need to act now to avoid a nuclear holocaust in future. Because of that new realism, a deal seems possible at least to lessen the overkill and make a start on a downturn in the nuclear arsenals rather than crazy expansion. Arms control negotiations are very slow and easily get bogged down. They require a serious political will. It is source of sadness and of concern that there has been no deal in President Reagan's period of office or during the Prime Minister's eight years on the central issue of achieving nuclear arms reductions.
An opportunity for an agreement exists now. That has arisen not from strength, but more from glut. There are 50,000 nuclear warheads with 1 million times the power of the Hiroshima bomb. The Gorbachev initiative provides the opportunity. I hope that the deal will not be thwarted deliberately by some dinosaur-thinking, pro-nuclear vested interest. Such potential deals have been sabotaged before. The House of Commons Library briefing paper put it succinctly:
Arms control, because of its emotive aspects, is always vulnerable to political abuse, when Governments use the forum of Arms Control to pursue other aims or distract attention from actual deployment programmes.


There must be no political abuse in this case. On the contrary, the deal should be nurtured as top priority. That should be the British Government's insistence. The deal must also not be used as a cover or excuse to expand under the guise of modernising nuclear weapons in the categories outside the deal. There are signs that that could happen. The Government do not appear to have clean hands in that respect. The Government and some NATO dinosaurs appear to me to be in the process of trying to cheat on the deal, even before it has been agreed. I will refer to that later.
The deal will almost certainly be limited. It is called zero-zero, but that is a misnomer. That does not mean zero nuclear weapons on both sides. It is unlikely even to meet Mr. Gorbachev's aim, proclaimed before the Reykjavik summit, of zero European theatre nuclear weapons in five to eight years, excluding the British and French capability. That exclusion alone would not have meant zero. For a start, that deal would be restricted to Europe. Secondly, British and French submarine long-range nuclear weapons would be untouched. The deal will cover only intermediate nuclear weapons—the shorter-range intermediate forces in the range of 500 km to 1,000 km and longer-range intermediate nuclear forces in the range of 1,000 km to 5,500 km. Missiles outside those ranges will not be included in the agreement. Battlefield nuclear artillery, airdrop nuclear weapons and short-range missiles up to the 5,000 km range are not included. Strategic intercontinental weapons over the 5,500 km range are not included and space nuclear weapons—star wars—are not included. A lot is not included. However, even within the intermediate nuclear weapons range, the West German Government have been screaming for the exclusion of Pershing IA missiles. They have a range of 740 km, right in the middle of the shorter-range intermediate nuclear forces category which is supposed to be zero. Those missiles are German, with United States warheads, under a dual-key arrangement.
The NATO Foreign Ministers, at their meeting which culminated on 12 June, sought their exemption. They said that the agreement should apply to all United States and Soviet land-based short-range intermediate nuclear forces missiles. The reference to the United States provides for the exclusion of Pershing 1A, because that missile is nominally West German. But the limitation to land-based missiles opens up a huge loophole which, in my view, would subvert an effective agreement. The exemption, if in the agreement, would not mean "zero" in intermediate nuclear forces. In fact, it presents the opportunity to expand sea and air-launched nuclear weapons as a replacement for the land-based ones. The restriction suggested by the Foreign Ministers actually clears the way to the modernisation and increasing of nuclear weaponry. It means a new generation of nuclear weapons replacing the old lot.
The Government have been preparing for this. The Defence Secretary has already talked of moving cruise to Holy Loch and converting it to be sea-launched. Other cruise weapons may well be air-launched, as more F111 and B52 nuclear bombers are brought into Britain. More emphasis is being placed on battlefield nuclear weapons below the 500 km range. The United States has been reported as giving consideration to converting Pershing 2 into shorter-range missiles. There has also been talk of

replacing NATO's Lance missiles with new longer-range ones, of expanding the nuclear weaponry over the 5,500 km range and of placing yet more emphasis—along with British involvement—on the star wars programme.
Those developments could seriously undermine the opportunities opened up by an INF deal for a permanent reduction in the number of nuclear weapons. What assurances will the Government give that, if an INF deal is achieved, they will not use it simply to deploy more nuclear weapons in a different category? The Government seem to have been very active in this respect, planning for loopholes and for the replacement of missiles which have to leave Britain. I understand that the official parlance is "compensatory measures". The Government proclaim themselves as being one of the main architects of the deal. That is a falsehood. They are still busy expanding Britain's nuclear weaponry, particularly outside the range of a likely deal. They are introducing a new generation of battlefield nuclear weapons—nuclear cels, with a neutron bomb capacity; and purchasing Trident, which represents a huge upgrading of Britain's strategic nuclear arsenal. The number of warheads on each submarine is boosted by two and a half times, from 48 to 128, with a capacity for expansion to 224 per submarine.
This is at a time when a 50 per cent. cut in strategic offensive weapons is one of the Government's proclaimed aims, mentioned in the Queen's Speech. That seems to be interpreted as cuts in everyone else's missiles, but not in our own. Trident is a hindrance to a deal between the two superpowers, especially one to achieve a nuclear-free Europe. It also prejudices the climate for disarmament. Furthermore, it undermines the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Along with the Prime Minister's notorious Moscow statement that nuclear weapons are the only means of allowing a small country to stand up to a big one, it gives the green light to proliferation—to every small country obtaining a nuclear bomb.
The Tory record, when examined for substance rather than rhetoric, is quite thin on achievement. The Prime Minister's "nuclearphilia", as the Russians called it, puts nuclear disarmament in Europe out of reach. The Prime Minister is very much a part of the problem; she is no part of the answer to it.
Britain should be doing much more. A high profile in international diplomacy, especially for general election purposes, is no substitute for the achievement of real nuclear disarmament. Britain should be prepared to close the loopholes and to renounce expansion. Britain should be prepared to make a bilateral deal with the Soviet Union, whatever the outcome of the INF negotiations. We should join the call for a nuclear-free Europe.
Zero-zero is not what it pretends to be. It is a misnomer. It is a step forward, but only a first step. There are many others, and the Government should be using the Gorbachev impetus to place them on the agenda. For example, battlefield nuclear weapons should be drawn in to the deal. It should be made into a triple-zero option. The Government should be pressing for a longer-range nuclear weapons agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union and for the scrapping of many of those missiles.
The Government should also ensure that a comprehensive test ban treaty is put back on the agenda. The Soviet Union's self-imposed moratorium was wasted. Britain still


objects, on the basis of inadequate verification. The United States has dropped that objection, but wants tests to continue so that new nuclear weapons can be developed.
We should be backing a new test ban treaty. We should not do anything and we certainly should not encourage anything that breaches the ABM treaty. Outside Europe, we should stop stalling. We should sign the 1985 Rarotonga treaty, which aims to restrict the testing, deployment and use of nuclear weapons in the south Pacific. Britain should withdraw from the star wars programme. Its alleged rationale—as a shield against all ballistic missiles—is obviously flawed. Its potential is much more offensive than defensive, and it has a massive first strike capacity. It will reduce stability between the superpowers.
Britain should also refuse to accept chemical weapons on its soil. We should seek their complete elimination worldwide, and also a reduction in conventional weapons. Britain should grasp the opportunities that an INF deal would provide. We should not invent ways to circumvent it. For the future of the world, we must not lose this opportunity.

Mr. John Browne: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on drawing this place in the debate, even though I do not agree with much that he said.
As always, our aim must be peace, but not peace at any price. It must be peace with freedom. If we want peace with freedom, we must be prepared to defend ourselves not with a minimal capacity but with a credible deterrence capacity.
Approximately 5·2 per cent. of our gross domestic product is devoted to defence. It acts as an insurance policy against aggression. This level of spending is a little lower than that in the United States, where it is between 6·5 and 7 per cent. However, we depend critically upon alliances. We must be careful not to make any moves on nuclear arms control that would split those alliances. They are an essential part of our defence strategy.
The result of the defence policies of the last 40 years under both Labour and Conservative Governments has been peace within NATO. This 40 years of peace within NATO has not been in a peaceful world. There have been hundreds of conflicts since 1945. That is what makes the peace within NATO so special. The hon. Member for Leyton referred to the Falklands battle. It did not escalate because of the nuclear deterrent and the super-power balance. We have enjoyed a period of peace and we now have the highest degree of freedom and human rights in history. It is not a bad bargain; it is something about which we should be pleased and we should look for the reasons for that success.
In all of our policies we must continually re-evaluate and examine the sectors in which the world is moving and adapt accordingly. We must not gamble our national survival on mere whims or vague assumptions. We have empirical evidence and a track record from which to draw. We must not gamble on unchecked proposals on nuclear disarmament, for example, from the Soviet bloc. We must check because those proposals are not always what they appear to be on the front cover. When one looks at the details one finds that a different nuance is thrown upon them.
We must be creative and flexible and push for peace with balanced disarmament. However, to maintain peace

we must be vigilant and always look for substance in the reaction to proposals. We owe it to our citizens, not only those who are alive today but to future generations, to ensure that verification is as certain as it can be and that any reductions are balanced, not only in nuclear forces but in biochemical and conventional forces. Defence should be looked at as a completely integrated system. It would be wrong to allow even a balanced reduction in one arm of defence that leaves us more exposed in another. In other words, it would be wrong if we had a reduction to zero in nuclear weapons but left ourselves with a deficit in biochemical weapons. That would be to leave ourselves wide open and it would not be in the best interests of either our country or of world peace.
We should remember the Carthaginian wars when, in the interest of trade, Carthage suggested disarmament and unilaterally disarmed. Today, historians argue about the location of Carthage, and that was before the days of gunpowder. There was a complete annihilation by Rome, the side that did not disarm.
The outlook today is exciting. There are great economic prospects. One only has to look at what is happening in agriculture. There are also great financial and social prospects as well as those for peace and disarmament. There are prospects of turning the dream of nuclear disarmament into reality. We are at that threshold, but we should not take options at their face value. It is vital important for our leaders and politicians to look at the details. There will be a need for that in the future unless we are to create a catastrophe in terms of peace with freedom.
A bright future is in prospect and that has been arrived at not by weakness in the western position but as a result of strength. It is also due to other pressures on the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union has enormous economic problems. They are more understandable, if one compares the strengths and weaknesses of the free democracies and those of the totalitarian states. It is difficult for Governments of free democracies to sustain any form of hot war when there is no open threat to the mother country. The reverse is true of a totalitarian state. It has little chance of generating real wealth in relation to the enormous wealth generation in the free democracies. The Soviet Union faces that problem.
The Soviet Union's economy is still basically in the heavy industrial age. It has not progressed across the board into the light industrial, let alone technological, age. The Soviet Union has problems in generating the wealth necessary to maintain the trappings and influence of a super-power. It also faces tremendous internal challenges. Sixteen per cent. of GDP is spent on armaments. With interchanges with the free countries in the Western world, consumer demand is growing at the grassroots for what we consider basic products, such as jeans.
The Soviet Government also face problems with the technological revolution. The root of power in the totalitarian state is the control of information. How can a technological revolution be achieved without decontrol of information by the extension of the use of personal computers?
The Soviet Government must also face external challenges, of which China is one example. It was predicted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister could not do a deal with a Communist leader over Hong Kong, but the deal was done. The Communist Chinese


Government are not communising Hong Kong so much as capitalising China, with tremendous results in terms of economic growth and productivity. China is entering world markets as an exporter of rice and other goods, which it previously imported. That worries the Soviets, if only because of a possible challenge for the leadership of the communist world.
Another external challenge comes from the other superpower, the United States. The Soviet Union is falling further and further behind in terms of wealth creation and the technological sophistication of weapons systems. It is losing the race, and the distance between the two nations is growing. The most graphic example is the strategic defence initiative, to which the hon. Member for Leyton alluded. This is a new aspect of defence in space, on which the Soviets had a monopoly in the 1960s and 1970s. The United States has now entered the arena. The entry ticket, just for research, is some $15 billion to $20 billion. The key element of the SDI is computer power, the ability to make some 40 million calculations a second. The Soviet Union is furthest behind the United States in terms of that industry and technology.
The SDI has had a tremendous impact on Soviet thinking. I was privileged to be a member of our delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting in December 1984 and to escort Mr. and Mrs. Gorbachev to various functions, which included showing them around the House. The overriding impression I gained was that the Soviets are desperate to negotiate an end, or even a halt, to the SDI. The SDI has given the Western negotiators an ace card. It has brought the Soviets to the negotiating table for the first time in decades to talk seriously about negotiation on nuclear and conventional arms. That is a very important factor.
There has been a great change in the Soviet stance on arms control. We must ask how there could be such a change, bearing in mind the old pattern and the resistance of the Soviet elite or Nomlakatura to any form of change, and especially to any leader with charisma.
In the first day of debate on the Queen's Speech, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary mentioned the impact of Mr. Gorbachev. He was right to do so. The why and the how of Mr. Gorbachev's succession is intriguing and will occupy historians in interesting research for years to come.
As I have said, I met Mr. Gorbachev when he came here. Much has been written about him, which I will not repeat. However, certain of his characteristics are important with regard to arms control.
Mr. Gorbachev has obvious charisma, Western-style charisma which he is both able and anxious to exploit over our Western media. He does not pay for air time or coverage but still manages to get into every room with a television set and on the front page of major newspapers every day of the week. What a change that is from the previous style of Soviet leadership. It has had a tremendous impact on the Soviet Union and the rest of the world. It will have a tremendous effect on the motivation of work force and management within the Soviet Union. It will enable them to export in major markets for commodities of which they were previously huge importers. It will have an immense effect on commodity and financial markets and upon arms negotiations.
Mr. Gorbachev will increasingly use his charisma to talk to people in the free world over the heads of our leaders and negotiators. That provides new challenges for us when trying to keep our people behind our policies.
He is a formidable negotiator and will exploit potential rifts between the allies. The difference between zero-zero Europe and zero-zero global is just one example of this risk. He will be able to lull the West into a false sense of security and allow us to fall into the trap of unbalanced, unverifiable arms reductions. We must remain vigilant at all costs.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I am having some difficulty following the trend of the hon. Gentleman's logic. On what does the hon. Gentleman lay greater stress, the alleged superiority of the West in intermediate weapons, which I understood to be an inferiority of 9:1 and 6:1 in medium and longer-range intermediate nuclear weapons, or the charisma of Mr. Gorbachev? Which has been the critical factor which has brought the Soviet Union and the United States together?

Mr. Browne: I myself did not say that there is superiority. It is impossible to tell which is the more important. We must accept the facts, and the fact is that we have got where we are through strength—SDI is just one indication of that—but Mr. Gorbachev's influence is also important.
The third of his characteristics that is important is his self-confidence. It is based on a tremendous track record of his own promotion and his own proven ability. That leads to two interesting points. First, people with that sort of self confidence can afford to be more flexible, and with more flexible attitudes they are able to be more creative. This has an important impact in terms of nuclear arms negotiations because no longer is it exclusively the West that puts forward the initiative and is told "Nyet, nyet" by the Soviets. We saw a classic example of the Soviets putting forward royal cards at Reykjavik, for which the West had been negotiating for years, and suddenly the West walked away without accepting them. The Americans, the great public relations experts, were beaten to the post.
I know that the hon. Member for Leyton will not agree with me, but I think that President Reagan showed tremendous integrity in saying that he would not accept those royal cards on their face value and that there was a lot more to nuclear arms negotiations than just looking at the face of a card. He had the integrity to come back, having refused what looked like an irresistible offer. The Western press tried to make him out as the warmonger in those first two days.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Perhaps he is.

Mr. Browne: I do not believe that he is. One main point that I want to stress is the risk that the new Soviet style can make Western leaders appear to be warmongers. That is a great risk because it demands tremendous integrity and leadership on behalf of the Western negotiators.
Under Mr. Gorbachev the Soviet goals have not changed, but their style and methods have. Out goes the brutal Russian bear and in comes a reasonable, responsible, even a reassuring Russia—a nice bear that smiles when it shows its teeth; it does not growl. That change is difficult for Western leaders to convey. It is a real threat to the population as a whole. Soviet hands at the


negotiating table are clean. All the activity is done under the table by surrogate nations, and that is something about which we must be well aware.
I welcome the new Soviet approach beause it creates a tremendous opportunity in terms of nuclear and other arms negotiations, and trade. However, it also presents tremendous risks.
One risk is unity. As I said. our deterrence policy is based on alliances. There is a risk of the splitting of Europe from the United States, or of Britain from France, in different interests, even in just the specific nuclear part of the arms control and arms negotiations. There are risks that we can be wrong-footed, as I think to some extent the West was when the Reykjavik talks took place. There is the risk that our leaders can come back from those talks and appear as the warmongers because the Soviet package looks so great. It is difficult to unravel the nitty gritty details of arms negotiations on television because it does not give one the space in which to do it.
It is a difficult new challenge that the Western leaders must meet. At the same time the Western leaders, will face tremendous temptations. There are enormous stakes to be played for, and the opportunity to come back as the so-called greatest peace-maker of the century will be difficult to resist. What a deal one could strike apparently on the surface, but what a selling short could result for the West and for world peace if one took only the popular decisions. For example, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, there is the zero-zero Europe option which allows for 100 residual missiles on each side, not able to strike each other because they would be removed from the West of the Urals and not be deployed in Alaska on the American side. However, the Soviet SS20s are relatively small misssiles on mobile launchers with a reload capacity and are able to strike into Europe.
Why is it not zero-zero global? The zero-zero Europe option means that down the road the European interests become different from the American interests, thereby decoupling the key alliance of our defence and of our peace and freedom. Therefore, zero-zero Europe is a very different thing from zero-zero global. Yet, in the newspapers it is just referred to as zero-zero. When one starts unravelling the details it is a very different thing.
I would like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister, who is being very patient, whether he would update us on the nuclear planning group. the spring meeting of the NATO defence Ministers and the EEC Foreign Ministers with regard to nuclear arms reduction, just to put us in the picture more than we were before the election campaign and more than we have been over the past two months. It is a fascinating subject and I would be grateful to him for that.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and fellow Members of the Government to persevere with their patience because it will take enormous patience both to negotiate with the Soviet Union and to explain the real details and the effects of those details to our own people? Will he urge them to persevere with the vigilance that was stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, to consider the details in terms of substance and to ensure that our Government and other Governments know the importance of integrity in terms of accepting the risk of appearing to be the warmonger? They should not accept at face value superficial royal cards on the other side that would mean the dissolution of one arm or

another of our integrated defence system. We must accept the need for change, for updating and the need for arms negotiations. I would strongly welcome such negotiations. In fact, it would be obscene to go on if we could think of a way of not spending all that money and of not putting the world at such risk. At the same time we must be vigilant and ensure that arms reductions are genuine. Let us hope that the peace we have enjoyed for the past 40 years will progress for 40 years in the future and beyond. I wish my hon. Friend the Minister well in that tough endeavour.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) for putting this subject on our agenda, although at a late hour, which is not the hour of his choosing. It is time that we had some discussion on this subject, albeit a fairly brief one.
I share many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Leyton and some of his conclusions, although not all of them and not all the direction of his argument. I parted company with him when he said—giving the game away as to the difference between his standpoint and mine—that it might be possible or necessary to have a bilateral deal between Britain and the Soviet Union if the current global discussions broke down. That is the point at which we would be abandoning any attempt to have a NATO strategy and deciding that we can simply negotiate some minor adjustment in Soviet weaponry to compensate for the removal of all the nuclear weaponry that is in the United Kingdom. I watched the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) making such an offer to Mr. Gorbachev when he and I and the noble lord Lord Whitelaw were in Moscow. Mr. Gorbachev was, understandably, most receptive and offered reductions in strategic weaponry and changes in the targeting of Soviet weaponry if the policy of the removal of all American bases from Britain and the removal of the British deterrent could be accomplished.
That is not the way in which we will make Europe secure at the same time as reducing the total of nuclear weapons in the world. For those two objectives to be accomplished, we need an agreement that draws together NATO and the Warsaw pact. I am adamant in my determination that that should be achieved by NATO acting as an alliance. It cannot be achieved bilaterally.
Nuclear weapons exist and cannot be disinvented or removed from the scene without negotiation between countries. We do the world no service if we merely detach ourselves from the system by which we are defended in a gesture that may marginally reduce the total of nuclear weapons in the world but threatens the security of the West and does not achieve those major reductions for which so many people are looking.
As the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) pointed out, this is a time of great promise for global arms negotiation prospects. We have seen a much more realistic approach from the Soviet Union, coupled with a recognition by the United States President of the value of an agreement, although we sometimes wonder whether the United States President remains in control of United States foreign policy. Perhaps we shall know tomorrow, when Admiral Poindexter takes the stand, just how much the President knows or does not know. It must be a matter of genuine concern that there should be doubt as to who


precisely is running United States foreign policy. There is no doubt that the President has become convinced of the desirability of reaching agreement and has some personal commitment to it.
What should the British Government's contribution be in the circumstances? Surely it should be to facilitate and to urge on the reaching of an agreement. The Prime Minister is fond of saying that it is all because of cruise, Polaris and Trident that the Soviet Union is coming to the negotiating table. But, of course, for decades the West has been strong relative to the Soviet Union at any given time. We have had areas of strength, and there have been areas in which we have been concerned that the Warsaw pact was stronger than we were, but our overall position has been one of defensive strength.
The Soviet Union did not then come to the negotiating table in the same spirit as it does now. It is obvious that the change in the Soviet leadership and its perceptions has changed the climate. One may speculate as to the reasons for that change. They are a balance of two factors: first, the economic factor to which the hon. Member for Winchester referred—the mounting cost that would be involved in the Soviet Union matching anything like the American strategic defence initiative, particularly in its offensive capabilities; the impossibility of meeting the legitimate demands of the Soviet people for a better standard of living, against a background of higher and higher arms expenditure. That is clearly a major factor.
Secondly, General Secretary Gorbachev has a keen appreciation of the dangers of nuclear war and a genuine desire to achieve peace. That is a harder matter to assess. Like any Soviet leader, he will not do that at the expense of what he sees as Soviet security. Perhaps it is more prudent to place reliance upon economic motivation for the stand that he is now taking. Either way, he is taking a more realistic position about the need for global nuclear disarmament than any previous Soviet leader did.
In recent months, Britain has too often been seen as holding back the superpowers from arriving at a deal, with apparent opposition to an INF agreement, and apparent hesitation at almost every stage. Indeed, it was only in the immediate prelude to the general election that it seemed to become clear that the British Government were supporting a deal on the lines that seemed to be in prospect and were no longer placing obstacles in its way. I take that now to be the case. I make no quarrel about the circumstances in which it arose. If the election influenced it, that is well and good. That is what elections are for. The Government may have sensed the general desire among British people to see progress towards multilateral arms negotiations. Indeed, some British people are suspicious of one-sided disarmament but are anxious to secure multilateral disarmament.
The Government cannot at one and the same time appeal to the opposition to one-sided disarmament and fail to meet aspirations for effective moves to multilateral disarmament.

Mr. John Browne: rose——

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman took quite a long time to make his speech. Other hon. Members wish to speak. Whereas I would readily give way, I feel constrained by that fact. I wish to put some questions to the Minister who is to reply.
What is the United Kingdom Government's attitude now to Pershing IAs in West Germany? Do the Government see them as a potentially insuperable obstacle to the achievement of an arms deal? Do the Government reflect upon the divisions that exist in the West German Government about an issue which is of understandable importance to many people in West Germany but is much more important for its political significance than for the real defence value of the weapons about which we are speaking? What is the United Kingdom view of the suggestion referred to by the hon. Member for Winchester that the remaining 100 missiles on either side should be removed because it would make verification so much easier? Do the British Government have a view on the total zero-zero option?
Has the Prime Minister abandoned the view she expressed at one stage that Europe might have to increase its short-range missiles to match those of the Soviet Union? It is difficult to see the point of such an exercise, as many of these missiles, by their very nature—certainly those stationed in the United Kingdom—could only be fired at our European allies.
These matters can be resolved. There are real prospects of agreement on the zero-zero option, but other issues must be debated, such as battlefield nuclear weapons, which present the dangerous prospect of easy escalation into nuclear war. We must make more strenuous efforts to control and limit those weapons and remove them from a significant sector of any potential European battlefield.
There is a need to press ahead for a comprehensive test ban treaty and to continue towards limitation of strategic missiles, which has implications for Trident. It remains possible that we could reach the stage in this Parliament that the weapons system the Government have chosen might fall within the limits which the super-powers want to set on strategic missiles.
The strategic defence initiative seems to carry the United Kingdom Government's support against all the evidence and all the sensible arguments. Nobody I have talked to from the United States really believes that it can work as a total defensive shell, the leak-proof astrodome of President Reagan's dreams. If it does not work in that way, it becomes potentially a very large offensive capacity, but one which offers no real protection to Europe at all.
If Britain is protecting Europe's interests in this argument, it is difficult to see why it should be offering any support to SDI at all. I say to all Ministers, particularly the Minister who is new to his responsibilities, that they should go back and read the speech of the Foreign Secretary, which gave 18 different reasons to doubt the viability and value of the SDI project. That speech remains as sound as it was when it was first made.
The Government are currently addressing the issue of a chemical weapons treaty. We send our good wishes to the negotiations in which the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Minister of State, is engaged today. I welcome the fact that the Government are taking an initiative in this field. We are reminded of the dangers involved and some of the frightening aspects of it by the current publicity given to the experiments involving servicemen at Porton, testing our ability to deal with any kind of chemical attack. They are extremely worrying instances—although they are not the hon. Gentleman's ministerial responsibility—and are a reminder of the terrifying evil of chemical weapons and the urgent need for a proper international ban on them.
Successful arms control must mean that each side feels that it will be secure under the agreement that is being arrived at. No arms control agreement which leaves one side feeling insecure offers any sound prospects for the future. That must be the basis for any sensible multilateral agreement. But to reach that position involves both sides making adjustments of old ideas of what constitutes effective security. It has happened on the Soviet side and it must happen on the Western side. It involves constant assessment of the implications of new technology, and questioning of our old assumptions of what we depend upon for our security.
At the end of the day, both sides must feel that the agreement leaves them secure from any realistically imaginable threat they could face. It is possible to retain that dimension of practicality while having the vision to press ahead to the kind of arms agreement which so many people want to see.
The determination of people to prevent the awful cataclysmic destruction of our civilisation by a nuclear war is there and it is the responsibility of Governments to give it practical expression. Governments which are found wanting in doing so will have to answer not just for the fate of the people of this country but also for that of future generations throughout the world.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on initiating the debate and on his efforts in raising, in this House and elsewhere, the questions of arms control and peace. Those matters should be at the forefront of our debate rather than, as we hear from Conservative Members, the eternal search for conflict and war. They maintain that there is the possibility, even the likelihood, of a war, and that, therefore, it is necessary to arm to prevent that. Frankly, I reject that philosophy. Anyone who believes that nuclear weapons provide any form of defence should look back to what happened in Japan in 1945, when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were devastated by nuclear bombs. In those areas people are still dying from cancers resulting from those bombs. They should also look at what is happening in western Europe at the moment, and recognise the increase in cancers that will result from the Chernobyl disaster a couple of years ago. They may then begin to realise that nuclear war knows no boundaries, frontiers or limitations.
As soon as a nuclear war begins, it is anhihilation, in one form or another, for both sides. It will be either instant death in the fire storm and nuclear winter that follows a nuclear attack, or slow, progressive cancer deaths for decades and decades. A number of excellent films on the subject show that a limited nuclear war conducted in Europe will result in what remains of life in this country being put back to medieval levels of production and living standards. Those would be the consequences of nuclear war.
Therefore, the search for peace and for freedom from nuclear weapons is important. However, also important is the search for peace and for freedom from war by conventional weapons. Hon. Members often claim that there has been peace in Europe for the past 40 years. There has not been an armed conflict, but I would not exactly say that the expenditure levels of both sides on arms, both nuclear and conventional, have maintained complete

peace in Europe, not had an enormous effect on the social expenditures that could have taken place in Europe or have not been part of the export of war to other places.
I wish briefly to refer to the terrible conflict between Iran and Iraq, in which 500,000 people have already died. That conflict has been fuelled by arms sales and loans frorn western European and American banks, and chemical weapons are being used in that conventional war with all its horrors. There must be a search for peace. Those who say that arms expenditure by the superpowers does not have an effect on the rest of the world are, quite frankly, deluding themselves. One of the major reasons for the United States budget deficit is its vast level of arms expenditure. Estimates are given for the levels of expenditure by one side or the other, but there are also hidden levels of expenditure. Education expenditure in universities in the USA goes, to some extent, on military research. A large degree of corporate expenditure, in one form or another, also goes on military research. There are large areas of so-called civilian expenditure in the USA and this country which, in reality, go on military expenditure.
The question worldwide of the consequences of the arms race must be examined. The real danger of nuclear proliferation way beyond those countries that hold nuclear weapons now, with the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons and delivery systems, is growing all the time. It is important that there is some positive contribution towards nuclear disarmament discussions. That is one of the reasons why this debate is so important.
When I hear generals pontificating about nuclear deterrents on one side or the other and mutally assured destruction—it is called madness by them and everyone else—it is time to think and call a halt to what is going on. There are enormous possibilities for a real reduction in and the removal of nuclear weapons.
I am unapologetically in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament for the United Kingdom. If we were to remove all nuclear weapons and bases from this country, we would no longer be the nuclear aircraft carrier of the United States. That must be the first step. Our lead would be followed by other European countries. The peace movement would be invigorated in other places and that would assist the overall nuclear disarmament process.
Secondly, we must examine what has gone wrong and right in the peace negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union. Considerable progress was made at Geneva when the Soviet Union submitted a number of proposals. A communiqué was agreed and it was resolved to meet again. Eventually there was the meeting at Reykjavik, and the proposals advanced by the Soviet Union were, in essence, the ones that the United States arms negotiators had been asking for in the past.
Why did the Reykjavik proposals not come to fruition? Why did they not provide a springboard for a real reduction in nuclear weapons on both sides? The answer lies partly with the stubbornness of President Reagan, who refused to put back star wars research and to cancel some of the research programmes. The pressure that was put on him by political cronies in the arms manufacturing and high technology industries in the United States undoubtedly had a major effect on his decision not to interrupt any aspects of star wars. That decision was both bad and dangerous. It has meant that the star wars research programmes continue and that the likelihood of


a computer-controlled war, or a computer-controlled nuclear attack, comes nearer, is more real and is ever more dangerous.
An enormous amount of money is being spent on star wars research. It is said that star wars is creating jobs when in reality it is destroying them and destroying hope and life. The claim is nonsense and it must be exposed. The idea that Britain is benefiting from star wars in some way is so ludicrous as to be barely believable. Conservative Members often talk about jobs that are being created in the defence industry, but I ask them to consider the loss of jobs that is caused by capital-intensive defence programmes and the development of research programmes in the United States. This part of the world is being treated as a sort of colony for the United States arms industry. If the Conservative party is seriously interested in creating jobs, it should consider socially useful expenditure and the problems that people face. Housing problems are not solved by star wars, nuclear weapons or the construction of more tanks. Education and Health Service shortages are not met by that activity. We must address ourselves urgently to decreasing all forms of military expenditure so that more money is available to spend on social programmes.
The role of the Government in stoking up nuclear arms race and supporting the United States is grossly underestimated. There are more cruise missiles destined for this country than for most others in western Europe. There are 30,000 American troops here, and we give them legal immunity through the Visiting Forces Act 1952. American troops are allowed to act with impunity when escorting cruise missiles around Salisbury plain and elesewhere. We allow the unacceptable denial of civil liberties to those in areas where cruise missiles are based and to those who seek to oppose their presence on the roads.
We accept all that because, apparently, we are prepared to accept that the United States can use this country as a nuclear aircraft carrier. We also apparently accept the expenditure of £10 million to buy Trident missiles for this country. Those missiles will mean that we have a whole new generation of nuclear destruction heading for our shores. Apparently we are happy to pay for those missiles. We are also prepared to say that we support President Reagan in not promoting peace between the United States and the Soviet Union.
The Government should carefully examine what has been put on offer by the Soviet Union. Those proposals include the zero-zero option, the withdrawal of missiles to more than 100 km from the frontier between east and west Germany. They also include proposals for the verification of the removal of those missiles. There is a whole host of proposals that could be considered and could lead to the possibility of the start of rapid disarmament.
We can go down the road of negotiation and peace or the road of massive expenditure on star wars, increasing expenditure on other forms of nuclear weapons, such as Trident, and the escalation of the military arms race. Do we want that? Do we want to look for peace?
The effect of the nuclear strategy is enormous. The Government's Defence Estimates for 1987, volume II, reveal that total defence expenditure from 1981–82 to 1987–88 has risen from £12·2 billion to £18·7 billion. The total defence budget has increased by about 50 per cent.

during that period, but the nuclear strategic force expenditure has increased by 150 per cent. during that same period. That appears to be the trend that the Government wish to follow.
The House should consider the Camp David text that the Prime Minister agreed in November 1986 after the Reykjavik summit. That text said that priority should be given to an INF agreement and a 50 per cent. cut, over five years, in United States and Soviet Union strategic offensive weapons. It also said that an agreement had been reached on a proposal to ban chemical weapons.
However, that text did not specify that the main negotiating stumbling block is the obsession of the President of the United States and of the high technology and arms industries of the United States to develop a strategic defence initiative. That initiative will lead us to the horrors of nuclear war in outer space, a computer-controlled set off of nuclear destruction and the appalling prospect of total annihilation.
We have a choice before us. Either we go down the road of nuclear madness, nuclear war and nuclear annihilation—the obsession of some to spend greater resources on nuclear weapons will mean that poverty in the world will increase—or we can look in the direction of peace and clasp with both hands the possibility of reaching an agreement, rapidly and quickly.
I hope that the Government will seriously consider the possibility of getting genuine peace negotiations under way with the hope of obtaining nuclear reductions at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: It is customary to congratulate hon. Friends who have been fortunate enough to secure an opportunity to sponsor a debate. I am a wee bit dubious about congratulating people on having debates at this time in the morning. However, this is an important subject and it is one which, at any time of the day or night, should ensure that there are people interested enough to participate. I believe that we have heard a representative section of opinion this evening.
We must return to this subject because although it featured in the debate on the Gracious Speech events are continuing apace. It is important that we keep the subject under review. That is especially important because whenever there is a prospect of advance or the possibility of a coming together, the Government immediately try to open up the divisions once more.
It is a source of regret that, in a country where there is precious little common ground, certainly among the Opposition parties, there is a consensus—if I may use that word—in respect of seizing the opportunities that Reykjavik and the post-Reykjavik situation have afforded. Sadly, when we look around for the Prime Minister to enter into that consensus, we see her acting out a role that is not dissimilar to that of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), where other consensuses or confusions seem to be evident. It would appear that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has been endowed this evening with the full authority of whatever remains of that small alliance to express the views of his party.
Labour Members' view of the Government during the past eight years is that they have done precious little to promote nuclear arms control and disarmament, and much to hinder it. In fact, following Reykjavik we saw the


Reagan and Gorbachev discussions inching closer together. However, no sooner had the discussions ended than the Prime Minister, who was not invited to Reykjavik—a testament, it would appear to the weakness and irrelevance of Britain—immediately tried to get into the act by going to Washington to attempt to weaken the resolve of the American Administration. It is certainly true to say that, had the full agreement been secured at Reykjavik. the prospect of the Prime Minister obtaining Trident and satisfying her lust for nuclear weapons would have been greatly restricted. It is almost certain that a wider agreement from Reykjavik would have prevented Britain from going down the road that we are presently travelling to secure about an 800 per cent. increase in the number of nuclear warheads that we would be able to train on potential enemies.
We know that the escalation in Britain's nuclear capability comes at a time when many people—in fact, the overwhelming proportion of the population, according to opinion polls and the like, about 79 per cent.—favour a nuclear freeze. Therefore, Trident and the maintenance of the independent deterrent, fly in the face of those attitudes. The implications of almost any improvement in or upgrading of our nuclear deterrent would result in the contravention of the 1967 non-proliferation treaty.
It was significant that in what was a thoughtful speech the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed omitted any reference to his party's position—or rather his interpretation of his party's position—in respect of minimum deterrence or the upgrading of that deterrent and its consequences for any non-proliferation or test ban treaties to which he would wish to commit his party. It is clear that Britain's adoption of any forms of nuclear weaponry will require testing, if not by the United Kingdom, at least by someone producing such weapons. If that were to be by the French—perhaps the most enthusiastic testers of all—or by the Americans, either way we should have to benefit from what is clearly a violation of what has hitherto been. at least by Labour Members, regarded as an inviolable international agreement.
However, from the Government side, we have heard from the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) all the old chestnuts about the 40 years of peace and how that is attributable exclusively to nuclear weapons, and perhaps partially to NATO. The Government have yet to consider the negotiations towards an international convention which would forbid the use of nuclear weapons against a state which neither possessed them nor had them stationed on its territory. We have yet to see any expression from this Government of a willingness to accept the doctrine of no first use.
Certainly, the consideration of the use of nuclear weapons against another nuclear power in retaliation is still at the forefront of the British Government's thinking on deterrence. Certainly, it is somewhat unclear whether Britain would be prepared to come out firmly against the use of its nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. Certainly, if we could get such a declaration it would provide assurance to those who are at present non-nuclear and who may consider the acquisition of such weapons.
One of the present problems is that many nations are on the verge of or capable of obtaining nuclear weapons and they must be discouraged from following that road. It is hypocrisy for a country such as Britain to say, "It's

okay for Britain to have nuclear weapons, but not for any other country to have them." We must go further than simply hiding behind treaties which had some substance when they were first agreed but which in many respects over the past 20 years have become almost irrelevant, given the ease with which relatively poorly developed countries can now obtain nuclear power.
This evening we heard from the hon. Member for Winchester about the problems of securing a zero-zero agreement and we heard that such an agreement would be virtually unacceptable in any form to the Prime Minister. But we have since heard that perhaps it could be reached. The Government's approach seems to be to say, "We may support what is happening because at the end of the day we do not have much say in it", or, "We leave it to the Americans", or, "We have had a go at the NATO planning; groups and elsewhere and at the end of the day the Americans will probably know best." They might say "Certainly, all the long-range nuclear weapons and" indeed, the short-range ones are American. They will be decommissioned when the Americans decide." At present the British Government take whatever line they wish so long as Britain can retain some sort of fig leaf.
We in the Opposition are not satisfied with the Government's arguments so far. We recognise that many opportunities may arise for the NATO powers and we urge the Government to seize those opportunities. We recognise that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is present in place of the Minister of State; the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who is participating in talks on a chemical weapons ban. Certainly, we would welcome any agreement on that. I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that there are many problems regarding chemical weapons, some of which were identified this weekend in the press. It is strange that a Government who claim always to adopt the role of peacemaker can at the same time test dreadful nerve gases on their own people in a form which no other member of the Alliance is prepared to do.
We live in times when there are tremendous opportunities for peace. We recognise that in their own confused ways, both the Soviet Union and the United States are beginning to appreciate that. On the one hand, we see the sophisticated Gorbachev and on the other the naive and confused Reagan. They are both coming to agreement, but on the sidelines this Government appear to be wilfully and maliciously trying to frustrate everything that those powers want to achieve. We hope that the Minister will give us some hope of a change of attitudes this evening and I ask him to give us the opportunity of seeing that hope meet reality tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The Minister may reply if he has the leave of the House.

Mr. Eggar: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to reply. I also thank the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) for giving me at least a brief chance to respond to this interesting debate which in true form has been initiated by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). It was nice to be reassured by the presence of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I


thought that I was to miss out on our debates that usually take place on central America, but I was delighted to see that he had his central American clothing with him even if he did not have the usual text. It was also nice to realise that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) can take some time off from his fratricidal strife to fight the battle on a wider canvas.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). I am afraid that my classical scholarship does not extend as far as his with regard to the Carthaginian wars, but I am sure that he will be able to take me aside after the next debate—as I will be seeking Mr. Deputy Speaker's permission to speak yet again—to give me the classical side of the story.
It is only to be expected that Opposition Members will criticise the Government for not doing enough in this area. However, it must be depressing for them to have to continue to play the old gramophone record which may represent a convenient concensus as the hon. Member for Clackmannan stated, but which is a gramophone record that was rejected and thrown into the wastepaper basket for the second general election running by the voters. It was clear on 11 June that the voters throughout the country supported the Government's policy on defence and not that put forward by any of the many opposition parties that have now reappeared.
One of the foundation stones for these policies is the recognition that arms control negotiations, and nuclear arms control in particular, are about preserving security, even if we seek to do that by reducing the number of weapons on both sides. This Government will not compromise on that basic point. We do not believe in arms control which does not meet that basic criterion of reinforcing security. If that means that progress in arms control negotiations at times seems slow, that may be an inevitable consequence of the complexity of the issues with which we are dealing. To call for greater speed in the negotiations ignores the very real need to understand fully what is involved before committing ourselves to an agreement which is binding on the Alliance.
Another of the foundation stones of this Government's approach to arms control is the commitment to full

consultations within the Alliance. I remind the House that we do not participate in the main nuclear arms control negotiations, the Geneva nuclear and space talks. Those are bilateral negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union, but in recognition of the consequences that nuclear arms reductions agreements will have for the security of the European Members of the Alliance, the United States has engaged in the most exemplary process of consultations within the Alliance. I remind the House that NATO is a free association of 16 democratic nations. We must all be given the opportunity to express our views on the conduct of the negotiations affecting our security.
Some may attempt to portray those consultations as European obstructionism, or European blocking of major agreements. Let me say frankly that it far better to resolve all the difficulties within the Alliance before the agreement is signed than to try to do so afterwards. That is what the consultation process is designed to achieve.
The Alliance is wholly committed to achieving an INF agreement, and in that context it continually assesses its nuclear capabilities. It does what is necessary to maintain deterrence. The United Kingdom is not holding back an INF agreement; on the contrary, we are a principal architect of such an agreement.
The House is rightly concerned about nuclear arms control. However, we should not forget the massive threat from Soviet chemical weapons—a threat that has built up despite the United Kingdom's unilateral renunciation of its own chemical warfare capability in the 1950s, and the unilateral United States moratorium since 1969. The dangers from those weapons are spreading. As two hon. Gentlemen have mentioned, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, is currently in Geneva, and will be making major new proposals to move the negotiations forward with the practical steps that are necessary to make a chemical ban effective. I am delighted that we have received support from both sides of the House for what is a major British arms initiative.
Finally, the British Government——

In accordance with MR. SPEAKER'S ruling—(Official Report, 31 January 1983: Vol. 36, c. 19) the debate was concluded.

Orders of the Day — Overseas Civil Servants (Pensions)

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I must first declare an interest. I served in the Colonial Service in Nigeria, and I derive a pension from my service there. Also I was a service man in the Royal Air Force during the war. I would therefore be a beneficiary of any change of policy that the Government might make as a result of the claim about which I intend to speak.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the debate. The subject has been raised before in the House—on 1 May last year—and I am fully aware of the official replies to the points that I intend to make. I have no quarrel with my hon. Friend. In the past, the claim has been raised at the highest level—Cabinet level—where it has been refused because, it is said, the money simply cannot be found to satisfy it. I believe, and I hope to persuade the House, that the Cabinet should be ashamed of its attitude.
All branches of the public service of this country, except one, are entitled to include war service in the computation of members' pensions when they retire. That provision was made to allow for the many people who, during the war, were taken on by the Home Civil Service. So that their position would not be prejudiced, members of the Civil Service who were called up were taken on as non-established staff without pension rights. Immediately after the war, it was decided that those with war service should be entitled to count half of it towards their total service for pension purposes, just as those who had non-established service were entitled to count half of theirs. That was seen as equality of treatment between civil servants who had done war service and those who had remained at home.
The principle was adopted in other branches of the public service, particularly in the 1970s, when it was extended to the police, local government, teachers and others. The Colonial Service, which is now called the Overseas Civil Service, was never included in that movement. Credit for war service that had been performed before the first appointment to the Colonial Service has never been given.
The question, therefore, is: why was the Overseas Civil Service excluded from this privilege, which had been given to every other civil and public servant? There are three possible reasons, and in dealing with the claim we may take our choice.
First, there was the legal fiction that a colonial officer was recruited in this country by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and to some extent trained here but that then he was sent to a colony which then, through its Government, employed him and were responsible for his conditions of service thereafter. Therefore, the British Government, not being the employer of colonial officers, never felt that they were responsible for the pensions of those officers. The colonial Governments, even when they became the Governments of independent Commonwealth territories, respected the pension rights of their expatriate staff, but they did not accept—at independence, at least—responsibility for war service that had been performed before the individual concerned joined their own service.
The Colonial Service officer was therefore denied the benefit of a privilege that, by the 1970s, had been extended to every other public servant. Naturally, independent Commonwealth Governments could not be asked to take

responsibility for periods of time when their expatriate staff were not working for them. The British Government rested on the notion that they were not the employers and that the people concerned would therefore have to look elsewhere. That is inherently unjust, and that notion is no longer pursued by the Government.
The second line of argument is the one that I apprehend will he used by my hon. Friend the Minister: that the British Government cannot afford the cost. Cost is an element in this problem. The Overseas Development Administration is responsible for the pensions of 46,000 former Colonial Service officers. The additional money that would be required to pay for war service, together with other service, in the pensions of those people would have to be found from somewhere. One accepts that it should not be found from funds that are allocated to overseas aid. The Treasury would have to find the money. It is not overseas aid; it is a matter of honour.
The Overseas Development Administration believes that about 10 per cent. of the 46,000 officers had war service before their first appointment to the Colonial Service. Therefore, 4,600 officers might be entitled to claim an additional pension entitlement. A recent estimate of the cost was £3 million. However, on 1 May 1986 my hon. Friend, the then Minister of State, told me that the cost might be as much as £5 million, or even £6 million. There is no basis for his estimate, save for a glance at the files and the derivation of some evidence from individual cases. The cost element is exaggerated. We must remember that we are dealing with a declining number of people because they are mostly elderly.
The third argument that is somtimes advocated is that officers of the Overseas Civil Service, the old Colonial Service, do not deserve this privilege because of the special conditions that applied to them. Some say that they were so beneficial that they are not entitled to the privilege. Those reasons were touched on by the former Minister of State, who said that Colonial Service officers were entitled to retire earlier than Home Civil Service officers, at
55 rather than 60."—[Official Report, 1 May 1986: Vol. 96, c. 1187.]
He said nothing about the shorter careers for those who served in unfavourable climes, in particular, the notion that was well justified for a long time that west Africa was the white man's grave.
That is one alleged advantage. Another is that the commutation of pensions is possible with the Overseas Civil Service, particularly in places where the colony concerned is about to gain independence and the careers of the officers are brought to a premature end. That strikes me not as an advantage, but as a natural consequence of the British traditional policy of granting self-government and independence while ensuring that the pension interests of expatriate staff are respected.
A further argument is that those officers whose careers are brought to a premature end should be entitled to compensation for early retirement, which is not something that is generally accepted in the Home Civil Service. It was suggested by the then Minister of State that Colonial Service officers have the advantage of a second career, such as being a Member of Parliament.
It is true that there is a difference between the Overseas Civil Service and the rest of the public service, but the difference is that conditions overseas were inferior to almost every other branch of the service. It is not and was not an easy life. In general, low levels of pay applied


because the salary scales were adjusted not to United Kingdom levels but to what the colony could afford. Therefore, that often being a matter of local negotiation, salaries tended to be rather low.
It was a short career and there were adverse climatic conditions, poor health services and few amenities. The typical colonial officer endured malaria, dysentery and typhoid as normal occupational hazards. I caught typhus when I was out in the bush and my wife saved my life by taking me to the hospital at the provincial headquarters. One night our house in the bush was burnt down by an arsonist who had a grudge against my predecessor. We endured plagues and suffered all manner of pestilence. Every colonial officer led a similar life and loved it because we had the satisfaction of working directly and personally to improve the conditions of life for the people among whom we worked.
We in the Colonial Service with our African friends spent our time digging deep concrete-lined wells to get pure water. We built bush roads to enable lorries to use them and so stimulate trade. We organised the schools. We improved farms. We talked to, trained and helped the people of the colonies to govern themselves. We gave no thought to things like pensions. Most of the people of whom I speak are now elderly, living in the United Kingdom on the pensions that they earned during their service. It is a matter of shame that they, who ruled the empire so well, should be denied the privilege allowed to the most junior clerk in a town hall. The amount of money involved, whatever it is, would make a small, but significant, difference to their lives. It is a matter not of affordability; it is a debt of honour. Why is it not paid?

Mr. Julian Brazier: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the small remaining band of happy warriors look so comfortable at nearly three in the morning that I am sure you will be disappointed to hear that I shall be brief. I should like to follow up a few of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). I start by declaring an indirect interest. Most of my mother's relations were overseas servants with the Colonial Service and its sister services and at least one would be a beneficiary of the proposed measure, were it ever to be adopted.
I have little to add to my hon. Friend's eloquent points. It is appropriate that we should debate this matter here. One of the principal aims, perhaps the principal one, of the Colonial Service was to bring this sort of democracy to many parts of the world. This Chamber has been duplicated in some 40 or 50 countries as a result of the work of the Colonial Service.
Life in the Colonial Service was tough. I pay particular tribute to the section to which my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington belonged. He worked in west Africa. To show how tough conditions were, I should like to give an example of an organisation that did not draw on the public purse. Recently, I heard a talk by a missionary from west Africa who told me that, in the part of Africa in which he served, none of the first missionaries to start work in the 1920s, not so long ago, survived for more than 18 months. The oldest was 36. It was, indeed, a hard life.
The war service of many overseas pensioners was not easy. It is an extraordinary anomaly that these people who

gave the best part of their lives to serving their country should lose up to a quarter of their pension rights because they chose to spend part of that time serving in our armed forces.
I shall not labour the point. The hour is late. The Government have a good record in war service matters. For examply, it is this Government who, for the first time in 40 years, took the firm decision that war widows' pensions would be paid tax-free and this Government who have taken a number of steps to give much better treatment to members of the armed forces, regular and territorial, who while serving in uniform suffer injuries caused by enemy forces or accident. With this good record, it is sad that this one anomaly has been allowed to continue. I urge the Government to look at it again.

Mr. Stuart Holland: There are many anomalies in public sector pay and pensions rather than the single one to which the hon. and new Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who opposes the Channel tunnel, referred.
There are considerable anomalies in the pay of temporary civil servants. I know from personal experience. In the 1960s, I was invited to advise a Prime Minister for pay equivalent to a student grant. When I took the matter up with the establishment officer, I was told that many people would regard it as a privilege to advise the Prime Minister. I said that it was, but that I could not afford to subsidise the experience. That attitude seems to have persisted in certain sectors of the Civil Service. It is regarded as a privilege to serve one's country and bad luck if one's pension is not properly funded.
I can think of other anomalies. Ministers have Departments and several thousand staff. Shadow Ministers, if they are lucky, have one, or half of one, research assistant. The Minister is able to travel on the approval of his superiors and take private staff. The shadow Minister has no budget on which to travel. Shadow Ministers for foreign affairs or overseas development cannot even get public funding for a telephone on which to make overseas calls. They cannot even get a postage stamp.
There are many people who gave war service—and were taken from their jobs to do it—and whose pensions were not funded for that period. Many fought through the war without gaining any public sector pension. Others gave their lives. I appreciate the point about war widows' pensions. That was an outstanding anomaly.
There is an anomaly here, however, which previous Governments probably should have addressed. It is a matter of diminishing and not major cost, and the Government should consider meeting at least in part, the claims concerned. I had to leave the Chamber briefly while the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was speaking, so I do not know whether he referred to hardship cases, but the Government should address that matter.
Many of the colonies may not have appreciated that they were enjoying what the hon. Member for Orpington called progress towards democracy. Rather, they saw their natural resources being extracted and exported at prices which were not reflected in the pay of those who drew them from the ground. Often, as a condition of independence, those countries had to pay pensions to


former civil servants. That is quite wrong, as some of those countries now face falling commodity prices and heavy debt burdens.
I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington that any funds that might be forthcoming should not be regarded as part of the aid budget.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I take it that the Minister has the leave of the House to speak again.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on raising yet again this topic. I remember some years ago attending a meeting when he first raised the issue privately with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who was at that time the Minister for Overseas Development. My hon. Friend has again argued eloquently and forcefully the case that post-war entrants to the Colonial Service should be able, like other British civil service groups, to reckon half of their military service for pension purposes.
As the House knows, this is a somewhat specialised and narrow issue and sadly, but inevitably, we are bound to traverse much of the same ground, as my hon. Friend predicted, that was covered in the Adjournment debate on 1 May last year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury replied to that debate and attempted to put the issue into historical context. It would be helpful if I recapitulated some of the points made on that occasion because I believe that the background is rather more complex than has been presented tonight.
First, it is important to recall why the concession on war service for pension purposes was introduced. The Superannuation Act 1935 provided that the unestablished services staff who subsequently became established without a break in service should reckon at one half its length for superannuation purposes. Recruitment to the Home Civil Service during the second world war was on an unestablished basis. The concession introduced for the Home Civil Service in 1946, therefore, was to remove an anomaly that would otherwise have arisen between wartime and post-war entrants to the service. Recruitment to the Colonial Service during the second world war was on a much smaller scale but generally continued along "normal lines". In other words, unlike the Home Civil Service, appointments could be made on pensionable terms. Although no hard and fast conclusions can be drawn, it appeared that the anomaly in the Home Civil Service that needed to be corrected by the 1946 concession did not arise in the Colonial Service.
It has been suggested that the Colonial Office, which retained control over pension matters until a colony achieved independence, may have overlooked the need to ask colonies to amend their legislation to allow war service to count as pensionable service. I think this scenario unlikely. The recruitment literature at the time gave details of a salary scheme for war service that stated quite specifically that war service before appointment to the Colonial Service would not count as colonial service for purposes of a pension. Post-war entrants to the Colonial Service thus had no expectation at the time of their appointment that war service would count towards their

pension. I cannot accept the argument therefore that, by withholding the concession, the Government are defaulting on their obligations.
Expectations among this group of pensioners may have changed because of developments in the 1970s. However, those circumstances are not identical. The public service groups to whom the war service concession was extended during the 1970s—teachers, health workers and so on—have contributory pension schemes. Beneficiaries were required to make a contribution to the cost of implementing the concession. Colonial Service pensions, for officers at least, were non-contributory. Additional public expenditure resources have to be found, therefore, if the war service concession is to be extended to this group of pensioners.
I do not believe that it is sensible to characterise the public services as a single amorphous body. The Home Civil Service and other United Kingdom public services, the Indian Civil Service, the Sudan Service, the Diplomatic Service and the Colonial Service are distinct entities. Conditions of service differ in all kinds of ways, as do superannuation arrangements. In some respects, the arrangements for the colonial service were more advantageous than those of the Home Civil Service. For instance, colonial pension accrual rates were higher and retirement ages were lower. Admittedly, as my hon. Friend made clear, this was in part a reflection of the harsh conditions in tropical areas, but in many respects the post-war years saw steady improvements in those conditions.
Colonial service pensions are index-linked from the age of 55 rather than from the age of 60. Many officers retired at independence, some with immediate payment of pension, while still at an age to begin successful second careers, even if all could not follow my hon. Friend. It is difficult to argue, therefore, that, as a group, Colonial Service pensioners have fared significantly worse than their peers in the United Kingdom public services. Similarly, there is no case for treating them automatically as on all fours with those groups in superannuation arrangements.
The case for granting war service credit to Colonial Service officers in the immediate post-war years, therefore, was clearly not considered self-evident. Extending that concession now to that group of pensioners would, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has admitted. hold an additional public expenditure commitment, unlike the United Kingdom public service groups, to whom it was extended during the 1970s. I am afraid that we do not accept that the cost of the extension of the concession is trivial, even though it may be trivial to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), to whom an amount between £3 million and £6 million, to accept my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington's estimate of the cost, must pale into insignificance compared with the £34 billion extra spending commitment that was made during the election campaign by his party.

Mr. Stuart Holland: rose——

Mr. Eggar: On the basis of a sample survey of almost 1,000 personal files completed last year——

Mr. Holland: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Holland: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Eggar: —we estimate that perhaps 5,000 to 6,000 pensioners could be eligible at a cost of about £5 million to £6 million. That is our best estimate. Information on war service in a significant number of cases was either incomplete or lacking so the estimate is subject to a wide margin of error.
I know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington is aware, that the Overseas Service Pensioners Association is not persuaded that the cost would be so high and argues that a figure of £3 million a year is more realistic. Nevertheless we are satisfied that our sample survey, which gives the figure of £5 million to £6 million, gives an adequate order of magnitude that is sufficiently accurate for present purposes.

Mr. Holland: Had the Minister left me alone I would not have intervened. However, he has been saying that there is an anomaly here and an anomaly there and that certain things are not self-evident. What is quite evident is that the Government will not address the quite reasonable claim that is being made and are not prepared to come forward with the funding when it is inconsistent with the rest of what has happened. As to whether £3 million is sizeable or not, the Minister may recollect that I said that, although it may not be the case that that should be met in full, it certainly seems that there is an anomaly. That is evident but the Minister simply wants to avoid the point.

Mr. Eggar: The whole point of what I was saying is that it is not possible to compare directly the Colonial Service with service in the other public services. There are a great number of differences, to some of which I have drawn attention.
With regard to the question as to whether £3 million or £5 million to £6 million, which is our estimate, is a significant sum, I am interested that the hon. Gentleman suggests that part payment should be made without telling the House how he would go about deciding which part. Would he select specific pensioners for special treatment or would he pay only a quarter of war service credits? He cannot get away with an airy fairy assertion that he would try to be reasonably prudent. He was coming out with almost an alliance-type policy. I would have expected a more robust and clearer statement from the Opposition Front Bench. [Interruption.] The only alliance Member who has been around has spoken once so, unfortunately, is unable to contribute to our debate. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) wanted an evening off from his fratricidal strife and he has to come in to address the House on the question of nuclear weapon controls.
The claim, which has been argued so forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, has been considered carefully in previous public expenditure survey discussions. So far, the Government have not felt able to accommodate the extra commitment. That remains the position, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development are keeping the matter under close review. I am sure that the points that were raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will be given due consideration. However, I regret that I cannot give any undertaking as to whether or when the Government might be prepared to allow the reckoning of war service for pension purposes for former members of the Colonial Service.

Orders of the Day — Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the poll tax once again. I deliberately call the tax a poll tax, in spite of the Government calling it a community charge, because that is how it is known north of the border. The more it is debated in England and Wales, the more well known it is as a poll tax. In fact, the Prime Minister gave it that description not so long ago.
I clearly recall the debate on Second Reading on 9 December 1986 when there was no shortage of Tory Members who supported the poll tax. In fact, Michael Ancram delivered the winding-up speech. He steered the legislation through Committee. He was supported by Michael Hirst, who represented Strathkelvin and Bearsden, Alex Fletcher from Edinburgh, Central, Barry Henderson. Gerald Malone, John MacKay, Albert McQuarrie, Alexander Pollock, John Corrie, and Peter Fraser. All those former Members welcomed the tax. They said that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread and that the people of Scotland would queue up to vote for the Government. Two reasons why those people no longer represent constituencies are the destruction of our industrial base in traditional industries in Scotland and the high level of unemployment, particularly among the young, that is hitting the people of Scotland. Another reason must be the poll tax. In places such as Edinburgh and Strathkelvin and Bearsden, people realised just what the Tories were going to foist on them. The guinea pig was to be not the whole of the United Kingdom, but Scotland. Voters were queueing up to vote for Labour candidates.
Even some present Conservative Members did not do too well. They all sang the praises of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who is not here to defend the poll tax for which he campaigned before other Tories in Scotland even thought about it. He did not do too well either. At the 1983 election, he had a 5,000 majority, but that fell to 900 at the last election. The Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), did not do too well. A few more votes for Labour and he would have been out. The only thing that saved him was the fact that, for many years, he has played the role of the perfect gentleman. Certainly, the poll tax did not help him. Even the Secretary of State for Scotland did not do too well. The arrogance that the Government displayed throughout Second Reading and in Committee was such that the people of Scotland considered that the legislation was the final blow to them. It was a final attack on their standards of living. I am surprised by that.
The reason why I am here at this time of the morning is to put on record that we are now getting English Conservative Members of Parliament saying that there will be a revolt of Tory Back Benchers against the poll tax. I note that the Whip is nodding his head and saying that that is not true, but the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and a former Cabinet Minister are on record as saying that they do not like the poll tax. In fact, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) stated that on two occasions within Cabinet and argued against such a tax. Even the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) got into the act.
I am glad to see that there are converts to the argument that the Opposition have been putting forward, but it is a pity that some of the former Members I mentioned went through the Division Lobby in support of the Scottish Tories to impose the tax in Scotland. Their credibility and standing in the community would have been far better had they been prepared to say at that time that they were not interested in seeing the tax imposed in any part of the United Kingdom.
It is shameful that the Tories who are against the tax should say, "Why don't we let it be tried in Scotland?". I take exception to the community that I represent and the people of Scotland being used as guinea pigs. If the Government are putting forward the argument that the tax is much better than rates, it should be implemented throughout the United Kingdom at the same time
The hardship it will cause is such that people in local government, who arc not elected to take part in our political arguments here, are now coming out and saying that this will cause hardship in Scotland, and in England and Wales, if it is implemented in England and Wales.
The director of finance for the Glasgow district council, Mr. William English, who is respected in local government circles throughout the country, has said about the rating crisis in Glasgow that if the poll tax were introduced tomorrow it would mean that every person over the age of 18 would have to find £292. Many households in my constituency contain at least five adults and they would each have to pay £292, which means that one household would be required to pay £1,460 a year, not including any rates rises imposed. That would impose a great deal of hardship on many families.
This will apply in housing estates, where the people are among the poorest, but I know that the Minister will say that housing estates are the responsibility of the authority. I do not want him marking any part of my constituency, because the part of Glasgow in which I was brought up as a boy was mentioned as a deprived area so often that the place got a bad name. I have no intention of giving any place a bad name. I mean no disrespect to the people of Possilpark in my constituency, but the area was built in the period between the wars. The people were taken out of the worst slums in Glasgow. They were so poor that the old Glasgow corporation had to give them furniture. They did not have beds, tables or chairs. Those problems of generations ago still exist in Possilpark. When I was in that area during the election, I found that, although there was a good community spirit, the people were the first to admit that there were many problems. The poorest people in Scotland reside in that community, yet the Minister is expecting some families to pay £1,460 in poll tax. That is neither right nor fair. There are not many hon. Members in the Chamber this morning. However, I hope that when hon. Members read Hansard they will recognise that hardship will be imposed on many families.
The Minister will no doubt say that the Government will take care of low-income families and that provision will be made for those on supplementary benefit. However, we have not heard the full story of what will happen to those on low incomes—those in the catering, retail and garment industries, where the Government have abolished the wages councils that protected the workers. Some people are working in sweated conditions and are being exploited day by day. More and more the story is coming out that people are hired one day and sacked the next. They are on very low incomes; some are lucky to earn


£70 a week gross. The Government keep repeating the magical figure of 20 per cent. as being all that they will have to pay. The Government are distorting the picture because it is a minimum of 20 per cent. Some people on low incomes will be required to pay up to 95 per cent. of the poll tax because of the sliding scale. I want to put on record that the 20 per cent. that the Government keep mentioning is not the full picture.
As I have often mentioned in the House, my area used to have a booming railway industry. It was once the finest railway engineering construction site in the country, and it was famous throughout the world for its expertise. Many people were pensioned off from that industry, and I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are familiar with such pensioners. They were labourers in the workshops and did not earn big money, but they got a bit of a pension. That was compulsory. They retired with two pensions, and they live with dignity and respect because of that extra income. Under the poll tax, they will not pay the minimum of 20 per cent. That bit of extra pension will be taken into consideration and some of them will be required to pay more than the 20 per cent. that the Government quote. There will be difficulties in communities throughout the land. I hope that the Minister will consider these matters seriously, as they were not properly debated in Committee. It will be the downfall of the Tories in Scotland.
The effect on local government is devastating. The Government say that high-spending local authorities will have the most to complain about and that those that are prudent and behave themselves have nothing to fear from the poll tax. That is nonsense. As I have said, Mr. William English, who is highly regarded as Glasgow's director of finance, has put the facts and figures to CoSLA, to various local authorities throughout the country and to Ministers, and, as I understand it, his figures have not been contradicted. I should explain that Mr. English is extremely worried.
The Secretary of State for Scotland, in his first speech in the House after the general election, congratulated Glasgow on the good work that it was doing. In his position of Secretary of State he took credit for what had taken place. He cannot say that irresponsible local authorities have the most to worry about and then congratulate Glasgow when he knows that Glasgow is complaining about the tax. However, he has congratulated the city on its housing initiatives, its garden festival and other projects. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about irresponsible authorities, but he is on record as saying that Glasgow is not irresponsible.
The bureaucracy in my native city of Glasgow will be a nightmare. The rates system, with all its faults, was a property tax that was relatively simple to collect. A tax was imposed on every building or house. Glasgow officials now have to start worrying about second homes, for example, because they will attract a different tax from that levied on first homes. If hon. Members are fortunate enough to have accommodation in London and a second home in Glasgow, difficulties will be created for local government officials. There are not many hon. Members in that position, but the issue of first and second homes will worry officials.
In Glasgow, 560,000 people will be required to pay the poll tax. Only half that number are paying rates. The population in a city such as Glasgow is constantly on the

move, and that is also the situation in Dundee. In Aberdeen, with the oil industry, the movement must cause an even greater headache for local government officials. The poll tax will be easily avoidable, and there will be those who are on the move who will avoid it. There will be those who forget to register and others who move and forget to register at their new home, for example. There will be those who avoid the tax deliberately and others who overlook registration. It is calculated that in our major cities about 20 per cent. of the tax will not be collected as a result of unemployment and associated difficulties.
About 80 per cent. of local government expenditure will come under the control of central Government. The rate support grant, which is one of the main sources of income for local authorities, and all other grants will be controlled by the Government. That will mean that the remaining 20 per cent. will be the only area in which local authorities will be entitled to implement a rise.
Critics of the Labour party will say that local authorities should have thought about increases, but time and again the Secretary of State has said that he will make allowances for inflation. However, this year, with the manual workers' pay increase and the teachers' pay award, we are aware that the allowances made by the Secretary of State have resulted in a shortfall in local government finance. Once the poll tax has been introduced, the increased demands on local government finance will be put on the domestic rate. The local authorities will not be allowed to put the increase—an increase caused through no fault of the authorities—on to the non-domestic rate. The poll tax will place an unfair burden on local authorities.
I envisage that families will be split up because of the poll tax. Those who want to stay together—most do—will face intolerable pressure. That pressure will result from the fact that, as a result of the poll tax, each boy or girl over the age of 18 will be expected to fork out about £300. There will be terrible pressure on parents to ask their sons or daughters to leave home.
The poll tax will bring back the days of the depression. I have no memory of those days, but my parents have bitter memories. I clearly recall my mother and father telling me stories about old communities where, because people's means-test money was being cut, young boys and girls were asked of leave home so that some extra money from the parish could be allowed into the house.
Because families will face a charge of £300 per person, young boys and girls will be asked to move out. Some responsible young people, who will say that they do not want their parents to be burdened with their problems, will leave home. That already occurs because of unemployment, and the Government are putting more pressure on the poorer families.
In Committee we heard talk of summary warrants. Such warrants will be discussed again and again as more and more people do not and cannot pay up. Because of the problems in our society we have witnessed the welcome sight of lawyers moving their offices from the city centres to the main streets of housing estates. However, in Glasgow and other cities we have seen the establishment of offices for people who are messengers-at-arms and sheriff officers. I have no desire to see sheriff officers moving into premises in a housing estate. However, the poll tax will encourage that development.
I can also envisage that some local authorities, which support the Government at the moment, will offer rewards to neighbours to tell on those neighbours whose sons and daughters are staying at home and who are, therefore, not paying enough poll tax. At the moment we have detector vans going round to find out whether people are watching television without a licence. Will we see detector vans going round our cities and rural areas finding out if there are more people living in a house than there are paying the poll tax?
The Minister should go hack to his boss, the Secretary of State, and tell him that the people of Scotland have rejected the policies of the Tory party, including the poll tax, and that this legislation should be taken away, forgotten about and buried, along with the Tory candidates who lost their seats at the recent election.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The most remarkable aspect of the poll tax was that the Tories thought that it would be a vote winner in Scotland. They told 2 million voters that if the Tories won the election, they would have to pay a tax that they had never paid before, and then they were astonished when those people voted Labour. I ask the two Conservative Members who are present to reflect carefully on that, not only to save their colleagues' skins on a future polling day but to consider how far out of touch the Conservative party must have been with Scottish public opinion. They went on to force the legislation through despite all the warnings from opinion polls in Scotland, from the Scottish media and the advice of all the professional bodies that are involved in rating valuation and local government accountancy.
It was with some hitter amusement that earlier tonight I sat here and listened to Conservative Members raise all sorts of questions about the poll tax as it would apply to England and Wales. Clearly, they did not think too strenously about those points before they voted last May to apply them to Scotland. Nevertheless, if they are having second thoughts now, I hope sincerely that they will be big enough to recognise that if it is wrong for England and Wales it is wrong for Scotland also.
However, I fear that those Conservative Members who are conscience-striken are struck merely by the size of the Tory defeat in Scotland. They will be outweighed by the number who do not understand local government finance but who are prepared to toe the line, and by those who understand very well that the entire idea is not about fairness but is, in reality, about enforcing lower council spending, cutting jobs and services and making Labour councils take stick from their electorate for implementing Tory policies.
Conservative Members have argued that the rating system is unfair. Nobody ever said that it was more than rough justice, but the price of one's dwelling is a rough and ready guide to one's wealth. If fairness were truly the problem, why did the Government come up with a scheme that is so monstrously unfair? If simplicity were the aim, why devise a scheme that the local government accountants have described as an administrative nightmare? If this is a supposedly simple alternative to rates, there are difficulties that Conservative Members representing seats in England and Wales may not yet have considered. People who move in and out of institutions will end up paying their own community charge and a contribution to the institution's collective charge. What

about the separated spouse who finds his or herself "jointly and severally" responsible for the ex-partner's bill? What happened to the idea of every individual being liable for his or her own tax?
I wonder whether the Minister has considered the impracticability of enforcing the responsibilities of the designated responsible person on a household because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) mentioned earlier, people who are accustomed to the present system of an annually updated voters' roll will not—if they think about it at all—realise that the new register is a rolling one. Such a person will perhaps not notify the council, but the council will discover that that person is there and he will be presented with a bill for the full backdated amount, plus interest, plus £50 penalty or a penalty of 30 per cent. of the debt if that is more than £50. People with no intention of evading, and who arc no more disorganised than the average Member of Parliament, will end up with substantial debts.
Can the House imagine a local authority pursuing all the small debts that will arise? I shall outline briefly some of the possible cases. They may include claimants and pensioners who have not paid the few pounds that they owe under the 20 per cent. rule, people who are homeless or who move from place to place frequently, young people with no independent income of their own, or carers who will be forced to take responsibility for their dependants' financial affairs.
Chasing up such people will cost a disproportionate amount of money and create public criticism of the council, not of the Government, who created the mess in the first place. It is a highly ingenious scheme and I give full marks to the Machiavellian who thought it up. Either the council will chase up those debts and receive public odium for its pains, or it will do without and either increase the poll tax of those who do pay, or of course, be forced to cut services and jobs when it was elected to protect them.
Another possibility is that all this administrative chaos will be avoided by having a comprehensive national register with computers keeping tracks of everyone's whereabouts. If hon. Members think that that is farfetched, the Institute of Cost and Management Accountants has already warned of the need for a supplementary national register if the poll tax is to work. Where do we end up next'? with identity cards for one and all.
Conservative Members have claimed that individual poll taxes will be high only if allegedly profligate Labour-controlled councils impose too high a level of spending, but the facts contradict them. Glasgow district council, of which I was until recently a member and on which I spent four years as deputy convenor of finance, held its rates steady for three years and this year declared a small reduction. The average rate bill is £514 and notice that I said "bill", not "rateable value". The former seemed to confuse Conservative Members on a previous occasion. The city accountants calculate that the poll tax will be £292 per head, so a two adult household will pay more than before and where there is a third adult a further £292 will be payable.
The national business rate has not yet been mentioned. If the plight of carers, young people without an independent income, the mentally handicapped and the homeless does not make an impact on Conservative


Members, perhaps the pleas of small businessmen will. The standard business rate will penalise businesses in the lower-rated, mainly rural areas. According to the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, it would mean 50 per cent. increases in local tax bills. That would remove one of the few incentives that many rural councils can offer to businesses to encourage them into their patch. There will be a loss of business to those trades, fewer jobs and rural local economies will be further run down.
Many English and Welsh Conservative Members will have voted for the Act in Scotland in ignorance of its impact on our country. They must be presumed to have acted in ignorance of its electoral impact on Scotland. Last week a Government spokesman said that the poll tax had not made the Tories any more unpopular than they already were from the revaluation exercise. Indeed, he though the detected a minimal increase in support by the time the election came round. He should chew on the poll figures for himself and not rely on being bottle fed by a civil servant's not too well researched brief.
I ask Tory Members whether they want all these problems in England and Wales too. Does not the scale of their Scottish defeat create just a niggle of doubt about their own safety? Would they have believed it if anyone had told them before the election that the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), the Secretary of State for Defence, would have his majority reduced to less than 200? Will they not accept that if they persist in treating Scotland as a laboratory for their experiments before trying out proposals in England they can hardly claim with any credibility that they believe in the concept of a United Kingdom?
The Government should support the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn and be prepared to withdraw the Act and start again on local government financing in a way which takes account of the needs and views of the people who elected us and who also elected local authorities to govern locally, not merely to act as administrative outposts of the regime in power at Westminster today.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: There can be little doubt that the concept of imposing a poll tax in Scotland proved to be one of the most unpopular acts of the previous Government, and the results of that were seen at the general election. As a candidate during the campaign I was aware that the poll tax, as it has become known, was a major issue at public meetings, on doorsteps and at every workplace that I visited. The public as a whole has responded angrily to the concept put forward by the Government.
In a parliamentary reply only last Wednesday the Minister indicated that the Secretary of State had received 966 individual responses and 240 responses from organisations about the proposals. The Minister declined to break those figures down to who was in favour and who was against, but it is widely known that the vast majority of the responses were hostile. Certainly those responses recorded in the press showed that many of the major organisations in Scotland from COSLA to the Association of Assessors were very dubious about the Government's plans.
Opposition to the proposal did not come simply from the supporters of Opposition parties in the general election campaign. Many Conservative supporters expressed concern, doubts and antagonism over the proposals. It is insulting for the Government to assume that all Tory voters cast their votes on the issue of greed. Many Tory voters were conscience stricken and horrified by the implications of the tax as it was proposed. The poll tax flies against the whole idea of a tax based on the ability to pay.
During the election campaign in the constituency of Moray—a seat previously held by a member of the Committee on the poll tax Bill—we analysed three different areas in the main town of Elgin to assess the implications of the poll tax. We considered three different areas—a leafy suburb with large detached villas. a section dominated by terraced houses in th centre of town representing the kind of house which is often the first home of a married couple, and finally we considered a section of the council estates. We found that those in council houses would suffer most under the new arrangements, the people in terraced houses would suffer next and very few in the leafy suburbs would benefit. The analysis was based on the electoral register and on those registered within the community to vote and therefore eligible to pay tax. It seemed that virtually everyone would suffer, but the penalty would fall most severely on those least able to pay—those who lived on council estates. That analysis is true of all sections in Scotland. This regressive tax is alien to the whole concept and psyche of the Scottish people. The Minister should take it away and rethink it.
Will the Minister tell us how he intends to respond to the Church of Scotland and to other churches about their concern over the poll tax? In a written answer last week it was revealed that 32 churches had written to the Minister. They asked what had happened to the original promise given during the debate in the last Parliament and in the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government," to preserve the benefit of the existing rate relief for charities in the form of a discount from collective community charges. They view with dismay the failure of the Government to honour the undertaking in the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. The churches have been active on this issue and they wrote to the Minister. In his reply, he said that the present reliefs available to churches in respect of non-domestic rates will continue. Will the Minister spell out explicitly what that means? He has not given a straight answer to the request to know whether the initial promise in the Green Paper has been observed by the Government.
I want the Minister to comment briefly on the non-domestic rates and their implications for Scotland. At present, rates are still based on rateable values. The Government admitted in the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" that business rates in Scotland were paid at a generally higher level than elsewhere. No concession has been made in the interim, although the Government accepted and conceded the argument when the sports clubs stated that they were placed in an unenviable position because they were expected to pay at a higher level. Has the Minister considered the possibility of granting some interim relief to the many small businesses in Scotland which are now in a perilous position?
There has been no effective response from the Government to the pleas of small businesses that the uniform rate envisaged in the Abolition of Domestic Rates


Etc. (Scotland) Act will be a disadvantage to the rural communities. In Moray, many businesses are concerned that they will be unable to sustain the uniform rate applicable throughout the length and breadth of the country because those businesses do not have access to the larger markets experienced by their counterparts in larger cities. That would be a gross disadvantage to rural communities, and it would lead yet again to rural clearances and the rundown of the rural economy.
As the daughter of a ploughman, I also wonder what thought has been given to how farm workers are expected to pay the community charge. Can we expect farmers to give each farm worker an additional £250 for every member of his family living in the tied cottage who is eligible for rates? It would be nice to think that they would, but I suspect that farm workers will be expected to find the money out of their wages, which are still appallingly low in comparison with those of most other workers.
What will happen to the crofting communities of Scotland, which have previously received 50 per cent. exemption from paying rates? What concession will be made to them? Are we to expect yet another highland clearance?
Those are all major points on which the Minister must come clean if he is intent on pursuing the folly of ensuring that the poll tax is imposed in Scotland.
The Scottish National party has always argued that the funding of local government should come through a local income tax. That would ensure that taxation was related to people's ability to pay. It seems ludicrous to me that the Government did not even consider a feasibility study on how local income tax could be implemented. Some European nations operate such a system. Are we so different that we cannot implement it?
The Labour party—at least, according to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)—is determined to stand
on the plank of retaining rates."—[Official Report, 25 June 1987; Vol. 118, c. 124.]
I believe that most people understand the anomalies that were abhorrent in the previous system. In my view, the poll tax is a much worse system. Surely we want to eradicate the anomalies of the previous system and bring forward a much more positive and radical approach to the funding of local government.
Finally, let me say to the Minister that the people of Scotland object very strongly to the idea that they should be used as guinea pigs in this exercise. Over the past two weeks, I have been appalled to read many reports from senior members of the Conservative party, both inside and outside the House, arguing that the poll tax should not be implemented south of the border until there has been an opportunity to examine how it has operated in Scotland. That is surely an arrogant attitude to take towards the people of Scotland. The Act of Union of 1707 stated that they would be taxed equally with their neighbours south of the border, but we now have unequal taxation, which brings into disrepute the Act of Union to which the Minister so loyally adheres.
More appropriately, if the Government had any concern for the well-being of the community of Scotland, they would take away this ridiculous legislation and bring forward the local income tax concept of other European nations. They would ensure that the people of Scotland

were given a system that enabled them to pay for the local government that they wish, without penalising the poorest sections of society.

Mr. John Maxton: Let me first thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) for raising this important issue, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on their contributions. I also congratulate the Minister first on his promotion, and secondly—perhaps more important—on being one of the few Scottish Tories to survive the general election. He must be proud of the fact that his position was not as seriously eroded as were those of most of his Scottish colleagues.
When we debate the abolition of domestic rates in Scotland we have to examine the failure of the Scottish Conservative party. My hon. Friends have already said that this was the Act that was to save the Tory party in Scotland and bring about its revival. It was the major plank of the Tories' election campaign. Except for his election address, the only leaflet that was distributed by my Conservative opponent in Cathcart dealt with the poll tax. That was true of most Scottish constituencies. Leaflets drew attention to the benefits of the poll tax and the horrors of the rating system.
Despite the claim that everybody would benefit from the poll tax, the people of Scotland firmly rejected it. My hon. Friend the Member for Springburn read out the roll of dishonour. He referred to those who had lost their seats. It was right that he should do so. However, my hon. Friend did not mention that seven of the 10 or 11 Tories who were members of the Standing Committee that dealt with the Bill lost their seats. Mr. Michael Ancram, the lead Minister, the man who staked his political career on the poll tax, lost his seat. The Whip, Mr. Malone, who guided the Bill through its Committee stage, also lost his seat. Now there is a "Scottish" Whip who does not even represent a Scottish constituency. Mr. Michael Hirst, one of the most vociferous supporters of the poll tax, lost his seat. Strathkelvin and Bearsden has the highest average domestic rate bill in the United Kingdom. If any area in Scotland stood to benefit from the poll tax, it was Bearsden, but Mr. Hirst lost his seat.
When this Government put the poll tax up front in their election campaign, the Scottish people told them what to do with it. It is an insult to democracy and to the people of Scotland to allow the poll tax to continue. When she answered a question that I put to her last Thursday, the Prime Minister asked me whether I was proud to be a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. The implication was that the United Kingdom Parliament passed the Bill and that therefore everything was all right, was it not? I am not proud to be a Member of a United Kingdom Parliament when the Government so obviously ignore the democratic wishes of a major nation that forms part of the United Kingdom. "The United Kingdom" means three or four kingdoms that are united. Scotland is one of those kingdoms.
If the Government had had any morality or any sense of democracy they would have said in the Queen's Speech that they intended to introduce a limited Bill to repeal the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. If they do not do so, they will face enormous problems—


for example, over the register. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments about the fairness or unfairness of the rating system. I disagree with the hon. Member for Moray about local income tax. Most countries have some form of property tax. That is what rates are. The point that rates are grossly unfair does not stand up to close scrutiny. The Government have completely misinterpreted the figures for the number of people who pay. They can get down to their figure of 21 per cent. of people who do not pay rates only by using the people who received rebates, partial rebates or by using those instances where husbands or wives are the ratepayers. The number of people in Scotland who are liable to pay rates, if husbands and wives are included, is about 79 per cent. of the population. Only 21 per cent. of the population is not liable to pay anything towards the rates, assuming that a young adult who is living with his parents makes no contribution towards the rate bill, which in many cases is unfair on the young person.
The present system of rates is not an unfair tax, but the poll tax will shift the rates burden from those who are better off to those who are poor. The Government say that it is unfair for a widow who is living in a big house to pay the same as a family of five people. I have calculated some figures relating to my constituency. In Corrour road there are two adjacent properties. In one lives a widow who is paying £1,500 in rates. The Government would say that that is an unfair burden, but I know that she is a wealthy widow who has been left very well off and that she can afford to pay that amount. Next door is a family of five adults. They are also paying £1,500 in rates. If one calculates the sums involved, the widow will be over £20 a week better off under the poll tax. She will pay only some £290 instead of £1,500. But what about the family of five adults next door? They will be paying some £1,300 a year, which is less than they are paying now. The well-off large family will still be better-off. The widow will be much better-off, the family will be marginally better-off, but they will both be better-off.
Who will pay for the family and the widow to be better-off? It will be people such as another widow who lives in my constituency in Castlemilk. That widow will be worse off because whereas at the moment she pays nothing because she receives a full rates rebate she will now have to pay a minimum of 20 per cent. That 20 per cent. will have to make up for the wealthy widow being £20 a week better-off.
The widow in Castlemilk will conscientiously keep herself on the register, but it will be extremely difficult for local authorities to compile that register. During the election I knocked on a door in Hillpark in my constituency and the lady who answered the door said that she was voting for me. I looked at the register and asked whether her son was voting for me and she said, "Yes." I said, "What about Mr. and Mrs. Parker who live here?" She said, "No, they do not live here, they were the previous tenants and they moved to England three years ago." Yet they were still on the electoral register.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Track them down.

Mr. Maxton: That may happen, but who will track them down?
Despite all the denials in Committee, there is no question but that the major source of information for the

poll tax register will be the electoral register. The person who compiles the poll tax register will have to choose between employing large numbers of people or obtaining the information from the electoral register. Finance officers in the Lothian region say that a minimum of 50 people will be needed in that one region to go around continuously seeking information, doing a lot of prying into people's personal affairs and knocking on door after door.
The person compiling the register would have to search for the other couple who lived in the Hillpark house to ascertain whether they were living there. Will officials have the power to say, "You say that they moved to England three years ago, but we want proof. We want to come into your house. We want you to show us that they are not now living here." That is an intrusion into people's privacy and it is nonsense that authorities should he forced to spend time compiling the register.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has asked Ministers a question about the register. They have admitted that the electoral register is faulty in many regards. It may be between 5 and 10 per cent. out when it is compiled. Once it has been running for six months, it may be up to 15 per cent. out. How will the poll tax register be compiled? It will not be feasible. If the electoral register becomes the major source of information, as inevitably it will, people will take themselves off it to try to evade payment of the tax.
The register will present a major problem. Some people will not pay the tax because there is a register. Others will not pay it because they will evade it. They will say, "We will not pay," or "We cannot afford to pay." In the past. I have given the example of the 80-year-old widow in the middle of February who lives alone in her damp house in a part of Glasgow and who will be given the choice—I agree that it will be her choice—as to whether she pays her electricity bill and keeps her house heated, or turns on the fires, knowing that she will not be able to pay the bill. or pays the poll tax. That is the choice that she may well have to face. To the Minister and, I admit, to me, it is only a few pounds and it does not mean very much, but, to a widow living alone on her old-age pension and perhaps supplementary benefit, it is a large sum. I wonder whether the Minister, when he hears of someone dying of hypothermia following the poll tax, will have the same sang-froid about this nasty business.
Young people will try to evade the poll tax. Other people will be forced to pay it. There will be the ludicrous sight of local authorities using the full rigours and whole panoply of the law, including warrant sales, to try to get back £50, £60 or perhaps even £20 or £25. The tax will be collected monthly and the authorities will say that they must ensure that it is collected within six months. The law officers will be chasing people for these paltry sums. In some cases, it will cost more to collect the debt than it is worth. Local authorities will eventually tell the Government, "It is just not on. We will not do it. We are not prepared to see young people harried from address to address to get the money. We are not prepared to put officers into an old-age pensioner's house to take away the television set to pay her poll tax. If you want to do that, you can, but we will not."
We are creating a nightmare to which Conservative Members seem to have woken up. They now realise that the proposed system is unfair, unworkable and undemocratic. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and


Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who was one of the leaders of the campaign and advocated the experiment in Scotland, have all come out against the poll tax, although most of them supported its introduction in Scotland. They realise that what happened to the Tory party in Scotland as a result of making the poll tax a major part of their campaign may well happen to them in the next general election. They realise that they may be wiped out just as the Scottish Tory party was.
Perhaps the Secretary of State for the Environment was right when he said on radio that but for the poll tax the Scottish Tories would have done considerably worse. Perhaps the Minister is delighted that the poll tax was introduced because he would have lost his seat without it. Although I would like to believe that that theory is correct, I believe that the poll tax lost the Conservatives votes in Scotland and that English Tory Back Benchers are afraid that the same will happen to them.
If there was any democratic justice, if the Government had any regard for Scotland and the wishes of the Scottish people, if they had any desire to have the wishes of the people of Scotland properly represented, they would withdraw the tax immediately. Whether they continue with their plan in England and Wales is up to them, but they have no mandate to continue with such an iniquitous tax in Scotland, and they should withdraw it.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) on his success in the ballot and on his choice of subject for debate, although not on the timing of his success.
I was not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's theme would be whether or how the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 should be implemented, so I shall try to cover both. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for congratulating me on my promotion—and, I think, by implication, survival. We have debated this matter across the Committee Chamber at about this hour more than once, so this is familiar territory although I disagree with his assessment of why so many of my colleagues lost their seats at the last election.
The real issue which underlies the debate and which has not been touched on much is the fact that the present domestic rating system is discredited and that the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 contains the only workable package on offer for doing anything about it.

Mr. Maxton: I wonder how the Minister can claim that the rating system is discredited in Scotland when the only party that stood fair and square for it and made that clear was the Labour party, which gained nine seats.

Mr. James Wallace: The Opposition got no more seats than they did in 1979.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman points out that the Labour party received fewer votes than it received not just in 1979 but I think in every election before that since the war. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Cathcart as to the effect of the issue on the electoral result, but I am interested that he confirms the continuing commitment of

the Labour party to the rates system. That is a sad reflection on the lack of constructive thought in the Labour party on this important and fundamental issue.
I make no apology for reminding the House what is wrong with domestic rates. I shall do so briefly, because our proposals were debated at great length and in great detail last Session. We spent something like 125 hours in Committee alone.
First of all, domestic rates are unfair. The bulk of local authority services relate to people rather than property and payment for them through a property tax is therefore unrelated to the use that individuals make of those services. A good deal of time in our earlier debates was spent comparing the hypothetical single person with the hypothetical family of four adults in an identical house next door who pay the same amount in rates. The message which came across very clearly was that our opponents do not care about the predicament of single people in that position. They are also unfair because they are paid by too few people. Just under 50 per cent. of the population are ratepayers and, as the hon. Gentleman said only 29 per cent. pay full rates, while the balance have partial or full rebates. This means, quite simply, that the burden of local authority expenditure is unfairly placed on too few shoulders.
Secondly, domestic rates are illogical. They depend on a system of valuation which takes very careful account of the factors that may affect the rent that a particular property might command. But this has reached the absurd position where, for example, someone will pay more for local services—having their bin emptied and things such as that—if he has a double garage where the cars sit side by side compared with one where the cars have to he parked end on. This sort of thing simply has no relation to the question of paying for local government services.
Thirdly, the rating system inevitably means the turmoil of revaluation. We saw the effects of that in Scotland in 1985 when revaluation faced many Scottish householders with what were seen as quite arbitrary and unpredictable impositions. Over 100,000 householders faced increases of more than one third in their rate bills between 1984–85 and 1985–86.
It seems that our opponents have no answer to those problems. So far as one can discern what Labour party policy would be—and neither 125 hours in Committee nor the Scottish manifesto gave many clues in that area—it would involve the retention of rates on the basis of capital values. That would do nothing to remedy the unfairness or illogicality that I mentioned. The alliance, if we can still call it that, would like local income tax, as would the Scottish national party, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) mentioned, but it has never come forward with properly worked out proposals of its own. Again, after 125 hours of Committee, we still eagerly await the full details of its proposals.
The hon. Member for Springburn emphasised the circumstances of poor families and the pressures on young people to leave home, but the young will be eligible for rebates assessed on their own circumstances and not on a family or household basis.
During the course of the ADRES Bill through Parliament it was repeatedly made clear that the provision of a rebate scheme was an essential part of the community charge proposals, and provision is made for such a scheme in the Act. I confirm that a rebate scheme remains a key element of the Government's proposals.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Will the Minister at this stage, before the poll tax is implemented, send out circulars or make them available in housing estates and libraries to explain what rebates those young people will receive?

Mr. Lang: It will be our intention to publicise widely the way in which the scheme operates when it is introduced and ahead of its introduction. Therefore, I feel certain that that point will be met as matters proceed from now on.
The Government remain committed to the essential philosophy of having a minimum contribution that will go some way to restoring a sense of local accountability, which is lacking at present. Equally, it is recognised that the minimum contribution means that many people will, for the first time, be making a contribution towards their rates. Thus, when the rates for income support are set in the autumn of this year—this meets the point raised by the hon. Member for Cathcart with his example of the widow and her heating difficulties they will include the average amount that we expect householders who are income support claimants to have to meet as their minimum contribution to domestic rates. That means that claimants will be compensated for the average minimum payment that they will have to make but, at the same time, preserve the vital principle of local accountability.
Our intention with regard to rebates, therefore, gives the lie to the repeated claims that the community charge is unfair and takes no account of the ability to pay. It is remarkable that, after lengthy debate of the community charge proposals during the Bill's passage through Parliament, that point still has not got through.
The hon. Member for Moray mentioned ministers of religion. The personal community charge is a personal liability which does not depend on residence at a particular address or directly or indirectly on the nature of a person's employment. The Government do not, therefore, propose to replicate in the new system of community charges any equivalent of the tax concessions that are at present available in respect of payments made by employers towards the rate liabilities of employees who, like ministers of religion, are required to occupy particular domestic property as a condition of their employment. It is in a personal capacity that they will have liability and it is in a personal capacity that they, like others, will be eligible for rebates depending on their circumstances.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister said that the Government are not going to take account of people's professions. Surely it is true that the Government are going to take some account of those who are in the armed services and who, having been stationed in England or Wales, move to Scotland. Surely the Government are going to ensure that they get some extra payment in order to pay the poll tax. I understand that the idea is that they should be paid an overseas allowance for being stationed in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is raising a different issue altogether. I was replying to the point raised by the hon. Member for Moray concerning ministers of religion.
The hon. Member for Moray raised some other specific cases on which I shall comment briefly. She mentioned crofters, whose circumstances were discussed extensively at all stages of the Bill. The circumstances of crofters are very diverse and there is no case for singling them out for special treatment under the new system of personal local taxation. Rebates will be available for those who need them. The hon. Lady also discussed farm workers; that

will be a matter to be settled between employer and employee. It is not something on which the Government should attempt to give a hard and fast line. Payments made as part of contracts of employment will be a legitimate business expense; that was made plain during the passage of the Bill.
I shall now turn to the process of implementation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already made clear our intention to proceed with the implementation of the Act. The first step will be to make a commencement order under section 35. No parliamentary procedure is involved in this process. I envisage that a draft of the commencement order will shortly be the subject of consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and, while I cannot yet give a firm date, I envisage that commencement will take effect before the end of August.
Bringing the Act into force will mean, for example, that assessors will then have the functions of community charges registration officers, whose functions are to prepare, maintain and keep up to date the register. We envisage that preparatory work will be carried out over the coming months, with the process of convassing beginning in spring or early summer of 1988. The detailed rules for the operation of the new system will be set out in a number of regulations to be made by my right hon. and learned Friend over the next few months. It may be helpful if I sketch out the main framework of these. We expect there to be about half a dozen main sets of regulations, of which the most significant are as follows.
First, there will he a set of regulations dealing with the definitions of domestic subjects, which are, of course, those on which no rates will be payable in future. The basic definition in the Act covers properties that are valued as houses at present, and the purpose of the regulations will be to include certain other premises, at present non-domesic, where people live. These will mainly comprise various forms of institutional accommodation such as halls of residence and nurses' homes. It was made clear during the passage of the Bill that residential care homes, nursing homes and hostels providing care on a similar basis would not be made domestic subjects, so that they would remain liable to rating and their residents would be exempt from the community charge.
The domestic subjects regulations will also have to deal with fairly complicated matters such as the definition of domestic garages to ensure fairness of treatment for those which are valued with dwellinghouses and those which are not. Again, the hon. Gentleman may recall echoes of that during our debates in Committee.
A second important set of regulations will be those relating to registration procedures. In sections 13 to 20 of the Act, there are a number of powers of prescription relating to the form and content of the register, the start of the canvass and the content of canvass forms, the notification to individuals of the contents of their register entry and the time limits within which they may appeal in various circumstances.
Thirdly, there will need to be regulations making definitions affecting the liability of certain groups. The most obvious example is students, who, by virtue of section 8 of the Act, will pay only a reduced percentage of the community charge. It has been made clear that this will be 20 per cent., in line with the minimum contribution which will be paid by those who are entitled to the


maximum rebate. Other definitions will be required under section 30 to provide for the exemption of prisoners in custody and long-stay hospital patients.
A further set of regulations will be needed to lay out the timetable for setting community charges and non-domestic rates to replace the present rate-setting timetable. This will have to take account of the need for the system to be able to handle the issue of a greater number of bills, so the timetable for setting rates and community charges will probably be earlier than it is at present. The collection of community charges will also require regulations—for example, to set out the information which is to be shown on community charge bills.
There is a considerable list of regulations, but work is well advanced on the preparation of the necessary material as a basis for formal consultation in the fairly near future. To help the process of implementation, we have made arrangements for a study to be carried out to prepare a specification of computer system user requirements. We intend that this should be made available to local authorities next month, and wer are confident that it will be helpful to them in providing a basis on which to design their own systems.

Mr. Maxton: The House would be grateful if the Minister, in dealing with the regulations that he will have to put before the House, would give some idea of the time scale on which the regulations are likely to be placed before the House and also what parliamentary procedures they will he placed under. Will it be a positive or negative procedure in terms of statutory instruments? Obviously, Opposition Members are extremely concerned about that. We assume that each will be placed as a separate statutory instrument that can be prayed against or debated.

Mr. Lang: I have stated the number of regulations that will be required and which will embody a number of different provisions, as I have described them. As to the timetable, it will be in this Session of Parliament. I do not anticipate that any instrument will be laid before the

House before we adjourn for the summer recess. My understanding and recollection is that they will he laid under the negative procedure.
I hope that this somewhat detailed explanation of the next step towards implementing the Act has been helpful to the House, particularly in demonstrating the extent to which progress is being made on the development of the detailed rules.
In recent days, much has been made of the proposition that the Government's proposals for England and Wales may be changed as they go through the House. Although it would be quite wrong of me to anticipate what may be done here or in another place. I am confident that the fundamentals of the reform already enacted for Scotland will in due course apply to England and Wales. Scotland is not a guinea pig, as the hon. Member for Moray said. Rather, Scotland is the trail blazer. Scotland is having the advantage of the provisions because the need for them in Scotland was made much greater during the course of the past year or so.

Mr. Wallace: rose——

Mr. Lang: I would rather not give way. The hon. Gentleman was not involved in the debate.
But I can make it clear that, if refinements are made to the proposals, we will of course consider whether any parallel changes need to be made in Scotland. None of this is, however, in any sense a justification for delaying the timetable of implementation so clearly set out in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act and so clearly approved by Parliament.
The debate has been valuable in enabling me to place the Government's position clearly on the record; first, to reaffirm our determination to abolish domestic rates and to demonstrate the fairness of our proposals, in contrast to the hopeless inadequacy of the position of the Opposition; and secondly, to make it clear that we will he proceeding with the implementation of the 1987 Act on the basis that we have always envisaged, so that the benefits of these changes can be enjoyed by the people of Scotland without further delay.

Orders of the Day — Lighthouse Service

Mr. James Wallace: I welcome this opportunity to raise the issue of the lighthouse service in the United Kingdom, because it must be many years since there was a substantive debate on this important subject. This opportunity is timely, given the number of issues that have recently caused some public debate and controversy surrounding the cost and provision of lighthouse services.
The orders for increasing the light dues and extending them to cover fishing vessels over 10m in length have not yet been debated in the House, although they were debated in another place. That is regrettable, given that the motions praying against the orders have attracted a considerable amount of support; more than just the usual formal notice of opposition that one sometimes gets. Nevertheless, the orders increasing the level of light dues have attracted considerable opposition from those involved both in the shipping industry and in the ports.
It is widely accepted that our merchant fleet has been facing a worrying decline for many years. Although this is not the occasion to go into that, obviously there are concerns that the increase in light dues is a further imposition of a burden upon an already beleaguered industry. It will affect our ships more than it will affect foreign vessels, because British ships come into British ports more often than do foreign vessels and will more often have to face the increased charges.
I believe that the increase will make our ports less competitive, not least with those ports immediately across the Channel in western Europe. Of all the countries in the European Economic Community, only Greece and the Republic of Ireland—which to some extent is bracketed with the United Kingdom when we talk about lighthouse services and charges—have lighthouse charges.
It has been argued by the Department of Transport that only one-seventh of the difference in costs between a European port and a British port can be attributed to light dues. This does not appear to square with the figures put forward by the General Council of British Shipping, which suggests that in Antwerp the cost per container is about £25, yet in the United Kingdom that cost will be about £90 once the new light dues provisions are put into effect, £40 of that being attributable to light dues. The difference amounts to about £65, more than two-thirds of which would appear to be due to light dues.
I ask the Minister, in replying to the debate, to give an indication of how his Department arrived at such a relatively small proportion of the difference between the costs and charges of British ports and those with which we are in considerable competition in western Europe.
Looking forward, we would like to see our ports, not least on the west coast, being able to take up some of the advantage of having a Channel tunnel, once it is built, and to become the terminal ports for western Europe for traffic from North America. It would be regrettable if a further increase in light dues were to put them at a competitive disadvantage and not allow them to take the opportunities that may open up for them in the next 10 years.
The extension of light dues to fishing vessels is viewed by the industry as being exceptionally unfair. They were imposed with little or no consultation. Admittedly, once the previous Secretary of State said that he intended to do

it he consulted, but prior to that there was little or no consultation with the industry. They have been imposed on fishing vessels over a certain length, and do not relate to their activities or to their ability to pay. Not taking into account the ability of individual vessels to pay the dues could be said to be the fishing industry's version of the poll tax. It has caused considerable resentment in the industry.
This is another burden on our fishing fleet that is not borne by those with which it is in most competition. I think especially of Danish and Norwegian fishing vessels, which do not have to pay the charge. Our fishing fleet will have to pay it at a time when so much effort is being made to bring European nations into line. We are putting our fishing fleet at a deliberate disadvantage by expecting it to pay that additional amount.
The argument for imposing dues on the fishing fleet has not been convincing. In fact, it is riddled with inconsistencies. On the face of it there is some logic in saying that the user must pay, but not by any stretch of the imagination has that been taken to its logical conclusion. There is no provision for yachts to pay. I can well understand the great practical difficulties involved, as there is not a register of yachts as there is for fishing vessels. Nevertheless, if the charge is to be imposed on the logic of user pays, immediate resentment is caused if we cannot fully follow through the logical consequences of that policy.
I understand that there is no charge on the Royal Navy, although it uses the Racal-Decca navigator system. Whereas previously it paid an estimated £800,000 per annum to Racal-Decca for the system, that charge is now being imposed on the general lighthouse fund. The Royal Navy is being relieved of that cost and it is being imposed on those who have to pay light dues. That is not the proper way to resolve any problems in the defence budget. It brings home to us the basic unfairness of the system as a whole.
When writing to the fishermen's associations, Mr. Battersby—the assistant secretary of the marine directorate at the Department of Transport—said, when referring to general lighthouse authorities:
The navigational aids they superintend and manage (which now include Navigator) are used by a great variety of shipping, much of it passing our coasts and not calling at our ports.
He is quite right. The general lighthouse authorities are providing services to shipping that goes around our coasts but does not come into our ports and does not pay. It is a fundamental problem, because people are using but not paying. The Government must face that problem. If, for understandable reasons, they are not prepared to accept the logical consequences of their policy, they should be prepared, out of general taxation, to make at least some contribution to the lighthouse authorities to help them to fund their services and to ensure that the whole burden is not placed on relatively few people. If other EEC countries can do that, with the exception of Greece and the Republic of Ireland, perhaps it is time that we consider that option.
As the orders have now taken effect, does it follow that by extending the charge of fishing vessels representatives of the fishermen's associations are now automatically to be included on the Lights Advisory Committee? The Department of Transport should be taking steps towards encouraging the setting up of a users' consultative committee. That was recommended in Arthur Young's report of 1984. I understand that the Northern Lighthouse


Board consults far more widely than those who pay, and that would be a good example to follow. It is my impression and understanding that over the past three or four years the Department of Transport has been reluctant to extend the ambit for consultation, taking the view that it is only those who pay who should be consulted. The Northern Lighthouse Board's view is that all users have an interest, regardless of whether they pay, and that as consumers they have a worthwhile contribution to make when the subject of navigational aids are under discussion. By including only those who are paying, the general lighthouse authorities are subjected only to the views of those whose prime objective is to keep down expenditure. I am not necessarily criticising that approach, but that seems to be the sole thrust of the views of those to whom the GLAs are expected to listen.
I understand that the British Ports Association is invited to the consultations, even though it does not have a direct interest. It would be encouraging if the Minister were to say that the scope of discussion and consultation is to be extended far beyond those who come within the category of payers, to those who are also users.
The reduction of expenditure is uppermost in the minds of many, not least the General Council of British Shipping. There seems to be a notion that with the advancement of technological aids the need for the type of safety aids that are provided by LHAs is diminishing substantially. A report was commissioned by the Lights Advisory Committee and undertaken by Dr. Strange, who, having made studies and examined the passage of certain ships between Portland Bill and the Thames estuary, suggested that if ships were fitted with modern electronic position fixing equipment there was scope for a significant reduction in the number of aids provided by the lighthouse authorities. I am not sure what status that report has, and I do not know what credence will be given to it, but it has some clear limitations. It cannot be assumed that all foreign vessels will use the Decca navigator system. It cannot be assumed either that ships under 500 tonnes will be similarly equipped. The report does not take account of occasions when equipment breaks down or of the position of yachtsmen and lifeboats.
Despite the provision of electronic aids, a number of ships have collided this year. In late January, or early February, in fog off Felixstowe there was a collision between Townsend Thoresen's Nordic Ferry and a Spanish cargo ship. On 1 May there was a collision off Dover in poor visibility between the Cambridge Ferry and a French operated vessel the St. Eloi. On 30 May, in the Channel in fog, there was a collision between the Skyron, a Liberian tanker, and a Polish cargo ship, the HEL. Despite the great advancement of modern technological equipment, collisions still take place. We are not able to say that we can dispense or readily reduce the visible aids that the lighthouse authorities have been providing over many years.
In a report on navigational aids by Dr. D. Kieley, which was published this year, reference is made to the numerous people who still rely on such aids. The Royal Navy has said that reliable and proven methods of visible fixing are always used whenever possible and the Scottish fishermen say that even the most modern electronic and technical devices can fail from time to time for unaccountable reasons and that as not all vessels are new, it seems clear that any future system of navigational aids should retain much of the existing shore-based facilities. I hope that

there will be recognition of the fact that, albeit that technology advances, for some time to come there will be an important reliance on the more traditional types of aid that have been provided effectively over many years by the Commissioners of Irish Lights, the Northern Lighthouse Board and Trinity House.
Another area of recent dispute is that relating to sound fog signals. Following a resolution of the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities that sound fog signals were no longer a general requirement, steps have been taken to discontinue a number of sound fog signals around our coasts. Indeed, a number of assistant lighthouse keepers in my constituency have recently received their redundancy notices.
I believe that there has been too much haste and anxiety in trying to follow the IALA policy decision. I have studied the roll call of nations that supported that decision and I suspect that many of them have not had to contend with the problems of fog—at times thick fog—with which we have to contend around our coasts. In pursuing that policy decision I believe that insufficient account has been taken of the apparent proviso in that policy:
Some low power fog signals may still be required to assist fishing and pleasure craft.
What consultations took place before the IALA reached that decision? What consultations took place with the various industries and users involved? Since that policy decision, what consultation has there been with the fishing industry and those who might be using pleasure craft about the consequences of the discontinuance of sound fog signals?
As an example, I think particularly of North Ronaldsay, an island in my constituency. It is basically a crofting island, with many transport problems. It has a small population, but it has a lighthouse. That lighthouse is an important source of employment. The island also has a very small fishing industry—a number of local people fish in the local waters. Indeed, one of the few opportunities for increased employment is in fishing. The fishermen of the island wrote to the Northern Lighthouse Board protesting about the proposals to discontinue the sound fog signal on the island. Although I have not seen the reply, I have been advised that the board suggested that if things were that bad, perhaps they should not go to sea. It also said that if 30 boats had been involved, rather than three, it might have made a difference. On North Ronaldsay, given its population, three boats represent a sizeable part of the working sector. It would be regrettable if it was the decision of the Northern Lighthouse Board to discontinue the sound fog signal, as that would have an adverse effect on the promotion of the fishing industry. This industry could not only improve people's livelihood, but could be a useful source of future employment.
The decision of the Northern Lighthouse Board also suggests that at times economic rather than safety reasons are the guiding criteria. Indeed, when considering the minutes of the Northern Lighthouse Board, one realises that, despite the emphasis on the fact that each lighthouse has been considered on its own merits and that safety is paramount, the tenor of the discussions is about whether money can be saved.
If we consider Sumburgh Head in my constituency, we see that the minutes state:
The decision to retain Sumburgh Head fog signal could he justified by the high incidence of fog and although there


was little passing traffic there was some fishing activity in the area. The Engineer-in-Chief outlined the potential savings from possible keeper reductions and running costs and eventual discontinuance of the fog signal on automation although a stand-by generator would still be required to power the Radio Beacon. It was eventually decided, however, that the fog signal should be discontinued.
It is clear from that that the savings to be made outweighed the advantages that there would still be for fishing activity in the area.
As regards Cantick Head in my constituency, the minutes reported:
There was no case to retain this fog signal as there would be savings from the reduction in keepers and possible future capital expenditure.
My contention is that this is not an area in which savings should be the guiding principle, but one in which the provision of the service and safety should be the overriding principles. It is a matter of considerable concern that there has been such a rush to adopt the IALA policy, not with any substantial regard to the service provided by the sound fog signals, but as yet another way of trying to meet the financial targets set for our lighthouse authorities by the Department of Transport.
The same pressures are undoubtedly being applied with regard to the future of the lighthouse tender vessels. I understand that the report that was prepared by Arthur Young reached the Department during the past week or two. It has still to be published for public consumption, and perhaps the Minister will suggest when that is likely to be. I do not think that it will be helpful if, without having seen that report, I were to indulge in too much idle speculation as to what it might contain. However, we know that to a considerable extent the report was commissioned with cost-cutting zeal and with an eye to trying to improve the balance sheet.
It is important that the Minister recognises—I am sure that he does—that those currently engaged in the service have, over the years, built up considerable expertise on the various navigational aids that they service and maintain and also of the various shores and approaches to the lighthouses that are supplied from the tender vessels. I wonder whether we are facing a position where that expertise might have to be dissipated. Is it indeed in the best interests of the operation that we should have—this may well be the case—one vessel trying to cover the entire service from Muckle Flugga to Spurn Head? Indeed, can one vessel do that? I should be interested to know exactly what the Department of Transport's interest is in this case.
I am sure that much of the detail will have to be worked out by the lighthouse authorities themselves. If the Minister will give some suggestion of the division of interests and responsibilities between his Department and the lighthouse authorities that will be useful to those of us who may well have constituency battles to fight on this issue. I am especially aware that many of the crew of the Pole Star are constituents of mine and, of course, the number of vessels and the crewing that will be retained is vital.
I am also aware that the town of Stromness on Orkney is the base for the Pole Star and it would be affected critically if the new configuration of ships were to remove the Pole Star from Stromness. The families who are based there and who live there are an important part of the

population and shop in the town. Most of the services and the supplies for the boat are purchased from local shopkeepers. Any decision to move the vessel away from Stromness could have important economic consequences for the town. I give notice to the Minister that this issue will be debated at great length if the outcome of the report is not satisfactory for my constituents.
There is a fear that getting rid of a number of ships will inevitably lead to the contracting out of some services to private operators who do not have any knowledge, and who have not had the opportunities to build up the knowledge, of the special needs and of the duties that have been undertaken for many years by the lighthouse authorities. We do not want privatisation by the back door simply to massage the balance sheet. What is most important is that we maintain a good service, which is what we have had up to now. Why upset that?
My concluding remarks relate, first, to savings. I ask the Minister what the position is now regarding the contribution made by the Republic of Ireland towards the cost of the lighthouse authorities? Receipts from the Republic are less than expenditure. I understand that there is an arrangement whereby the Government of the Republic make up so much of the difference. How has that worked out, and is there scope for more to be contributed from the Republic? We are in the unusual position of one sovereign nation appearing to subsidise the services that are supplied to another sovereign nation, when there might be competition between the two.
Secondly, what is being done to try to monitor the administrative efficiency of the lighthouse authorities? In its response to the increase in light dues the General Council of British Shipping suggested one lighthouse authority instead of three. I would certainly advise against that. The Scots would not readily accept any attempt to take over the Northern Lighthouse Board. It is a question, not just of national pride, but of economics, because with more lights than Trinity House the annual cost has been consistently less than half those of Trinity House. I am well aware that Trinity House has much greater responsibilities than simply the lighthouse service, but I would have thought that that would provide it with an opportunity to develop economies of scale. Yet, the cost of general lighthouse administration appears to be greater.
Similarly, between 1980 and 1986 the head office of Trinity House increased its staff by 20, whereas those engaged on other locations were reduced by 228. The Northern Lighthouse Board increased its administrative staff by three, whereas those in operations were reduced by 103. Therefore, it seems that more chiefs are administering fewer field workers. Perhaps a timely review of the administration of the service would not go amiss.
The lighthouse service is important in remote rural areas and problems follow from the reduction in the number of those who work for the service and from automation. Now there are threats of discontinuing the sound fog signals and fears for the future of the lighthouse tender vessels. When there are closures in the coal industry, for example, when many redundancies are pending and particular areas are hit, British Coal Enterprise Ltd. is there to relieve the unemployment that is caused as a result.
The effect on much smaller communities of the loss of the odd job here and there is not noticed, although proportionately that can have just as great an effect on the community. The automation of a lighthouse may well


bring with it the removal of a young family from an island or remote rural area, which in turn can affect the future of a local school. I have already mentioned the importance of the lighthouse shipping service to Stromness. I hope that the Government will be sensitive to the effects of any cost-cutting exercise on these communities.
I know that the Northern Lighthouse Board, to which I have frequently spoken about this issue, is aware of the effects, but it cannot do anything about them. It is not within its remit to take account of the social and economic consequences for a community of an automation programme or any alteration to the lighthouse tender vessels. It is anxious in cases of individual redundancy to take into account the fact that employees not only lose a job, but often a tied house, and it wishes to enhance the redundancy payments to take account of that. Naturally, it would look to the Government for assistance with that and perhaps if the Minister cannot respond to that point this morning he will write to me about it. I would happily correspond with him to see whether anything can be done to enhance redundancy payments.
Similarly, we should enable the lighthouse authorities to pay a rent allowance to those who should perhaps be encouraged to find their own home, either to buy or to rent, so that they do not become as dependent on a tied house as in the past. I understand that Trinity House has operated a system of rent allowances, but that has not been the case north of the border. If assistance could be forthcoming to enable the Northern Lighthouse Board to do that, I am sure that it would be welcome.
We need a broader perspective. We must accept that we need people on our coasts and that everything cannot he left to automation. There are good security reasons for that and when ships go aground it is useful to have people on the scene, not merely automated machines. In New Zealand and Canada there has been a rethink of the whole programme of automation.
We have a good service, which has been provided for many years. I seek an assurance from the Minister that in the development of the service the first and foremost consideration will be safety and the quality and efficiency of the service, and that that will not in any way be subordinated to the interests of the balance sheet. I am not denying the importance of that, but I hope that the valuable quality of the service will be recognised and that its work can continue.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): It is understandable that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) should raise this subject in tonight's debate. I know that he takes a personal interest in the subject on behalf of his constituents especially those in the service of the Northern Lighthouse Board. The subject of the debate is an invitation to cover much wider matters. However, the hon. Gentleman's timing is unfortunate. Not just because it is 4.59 am but because a number of the matters he raised are directly related to the Arthur Young tender vessels study which is about to be published and it would be improper of me to disclose its contents in advance.
However, considerable attention has focussed on the lighthouse service in recent months, and this reflects a range of developments and studies bearing on the activities and responsibilities of the general lighthouse authorities. I am sure all Members on both sides of the House have a

high regard for the dedication and traditions of service of those employed in the lighthouse service and I pay tribute to them. The authorities are bodies with long and respected histories of high standards in the service of the mariner. I recognise that they are engaged in a difficult period of transition and change, reflecting increased automation and new technology in the area of marine navigational aids. The problems this brings in human and management terms are understood. I have a high regard for the readiness of the authorities' staff to adapt to new circumstances.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the financing of the lighthouse services. I accept that the United Kingdom, with Ireland and Greece, are in a minority within the EC in charging light dues—though nearly half the members of the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities rely on dues of some kind to finance their lights. We in the United Kingdom remain of the view that the user should pay, within what is administratively practicable. I can hold out no prospect of the Exchequer taking on these costs. I accept some of the criticisms from the shipowners and ports that aspects of the current light dues regime—which has remained substantially unaltered since the turn of the century—have a disadvantageous effect on some traffics such as liner container vessels and part cargoes, and that some of this traffic may be diverted to a near continental port for transhipment. However, the reasons for transhipment are complex and go beyond the issue of light dues. We are nonetheless examing the scope for technical changes in the light dues structure which I hope will go some way to remedy some of the anomalies.
It is however inevitable that a substantial element of the costs will continue to fall on commercial shipping, because the revenues which might be raised from other users can never amount to more than a small proportion of the costs. The main category of user not contributing to these costs is small pleasure craft. Here it has not proved practicable to devise an enforceable system which would yield worthwhile revenue after collection and enforcement costs from other sources.
I fully understand the concern of the shipowners and the ports about the 14 per cent. increase in light dues which had to he imposed earlier this year. That increase has to be seen, however, as one coming after a long period when it had been possible to cover the difference between costs and revenue by drawing on the considerable cash reserves which had accumulated in the General Lighthouse Fund. However, these reserves were reducing rapidly, and an increase was unavoidable to bring revenue closer in line with current operating costs. There was also a new requirement—about half the increase—to be met as a result of transferring the £3·6 million annual operating costs of the UK Decca Navigator transmitters to the GLF. Reflecting this transfer, we have also for the first time extended light dues to the larger fishing vessels—but 60 per cent. of vessels—those under 10 metres in length—will still not have to pay. The Government believe that the new arrangements are a good deal for fishermen, who have seen substantial reductions in the market price of receivers. Most of those who previously rented sets will in fact save money.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of representation for fishermen on the lights advisory committee. That


is a matter for the committee, which has already approached the industry to invite its members to be represented.
Despite this year's increase, light dues are steadily declining in real terms. They are down 33 per cent. from the 1975–76 peak, and 18 per cent. lower than in 1981–82. The Government also reduced dues by 10 per cent. in 1983, in contrast to the increases of 23 per cent. and 40 per cent. imposed by the Labour Government in 1975.
The Government's policy objective is to contain and reduce lighthouse costs to secure efficiency and economy in the operation of the service. We have taken a number of constructive steps. There is now a much stricter control over the GLA's budgets, and it is set demanding cash limits which, to its credit, it is striving to meet, or even to better. A number of studies are now in progress.
I must stress that, although the costs that must be found for the lighthouse service fall on ship operators and not on the Government, we are determined not to take any risks with safety. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to have that reassurance.
A major study has recently been undertaken by Arthur Young, the management consultants, into the tender vessel requirements of the three lighthouse authorities. I know that this study is of particular interest to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, as one of the NLB tender vessels is based in his constituency, and he has already raised the matter. We have now received the consultants' final report, and my right hon. Friend will be making an announcement about it very shortly. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library.
This study was commissioned jointly by my Department and the three lighthouse authorities, and I believe that it is the first comprehensive joint appraisal that has been made of the fleets and the requirements that they have to meet. The report makes a wide range of recommendations, but, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it would be improper for me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement. We shall, of course, consider the report carefully in close consultation with the Authorities and with the lights advisory committee, which represents ship owners, shippers and port authorities.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in that the Northern Lighthouse Board currently bases its ship "Polestar" at Stromness, and he raised that in his remarks.
The consultants' report makes some recommendations about different fleet configurations, and suggests illustrative alternative locations for vessels. The operation of the vessels represents about a quarter of the current running costs of the lighthouse service. Those costs fall not on the Government but on ship operators, who are under considerable financial pressure.
The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of the Kiely and Strange reports. Let me add, in connection with electronic aids replacing traditional ones—which he also mentioned—that reports on navigational aids have commanded wide interest in the marine world. Earlier this year my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State published an independent report by Dr. D. G. Kiely, a consultant electronics engineer, recommending how developments in marine navigational aids should be applied in the coming years. The report contains an extensive analysis of likely technical developments, and

examines those developments in relation to the implications for United Kingdom marine policy and the likely requirements of all classes of marine users. It makes a large number of recommendations, and the views of interested parties have been invited. We shall be considering Dr. Kiely's detailed recommendations in the light of views expressed by the marine community. I am sure that, when that is done, account will also be taken of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
The hon. Member also referred to the Strange report. The Lights Advisory Committee has urged on my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping a review of the traditional aids provided by the general lighthouse authorities. In support of this, it has commissioned a study by Dr. John Strange to examine the shipowners' contention that many of the traditional lights, buoys and beacons have been superseded by those of modern electronic position-fixing equipment carried on board ships. Dr. Strange concludes that the number of traditional aids should be reduced as electronic aids gain wider availability. I think the hon. Member will admit that because of the duplication that would necessarily be involved, one could not expect two systems to be kept permanently in being.
The LAC report is a timely contribution to the continuing examination of the costs and requirements of the GLA's services. It would be wrong to pretend, however, that the resolution of these issues will be easy. There will always be a continuing need for lights and daymarks as hazard warnings—a point recognised in the Kiely report. There are also many conflicting views and interests to be reconciled. They range from the largest tanker vessels through to the weekend yachtsman. The lighthouse authorities, who bear the responsibility of providing aids to safe navigation for all users, have already questioned some of the conclusions that were reached by Dr. Strange. My noble Friend will be taking forward consideration of all these complex issues in consultation with the lighthouse authorities.
The hon. Member referred to fog signals, or fog horns. That is a management matter for the authorities, which they will no doubt carry through as they think fit, in consultation with the users. In the light of the recent recommendations of the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities, that fog signals should be dropped as a major navigational aid but retained where needed as a hazard warning, the GLA, including the Northern Lighthouse Board, will have to hold consultations with the vessel users for whose benefit the fog signals exist. The Government are not involved in the matter. I hope that the hon. Member will raise it directly with the Northern Lighthouse Board which is responsible for the safety of navigation.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister has said that restrictive financial targets have been set by the Government for the lighthouse authorities. I referred earlier to Sumburgh head, Copinsay and Cantick head. Cost cutting seems to be paramount. Fog sound warning devices, particularly for fishing vessels, do not appear to have been considered. Does the Minister believe that when the board is considering these important matters it should bear that point particularly in mind?

Mr. Mitchell: The board has to balance all the considerations and make a sensible judgment. I said earlier that we do not intend that there should be any safety risk. Safety is the paramount purpose of the board's activities.
The hon. Member referred to the proportion of light dues that account for the difference between United Kingdom and Continental port charges. United Kingdom port costs are about 60 per cent. above those in comparable Continental ports for the liner container trade. A study undertaken by the Department of Transport in 1985 estimated that light dues, on average, accounted for only one seventh of the difference.
The hon. Member also referred to the Royal Navy. The Ministry of Defence still pays for its use of the Decca Navigator under an agreement with the Racal-Decca company. It has not been relieved of that responsibility under the new arrangements. The hon. Member also referred, understandably, to consultations with users. The Arthur Young study of the lighthouse service in 1985 recommended a new lights users committee, in addition to the current lights advisory committee that represents the shipowners and ports. One must guard against the proliferation of committees and the concept of separate payers' and users' committees seems of doubtful value. The general lighthouse authorities have regular and satisfactory consultations with users. The fishing industry has been invited to be represented on the Lights Advisory Committee with regard to any extension of light dues for some fishing vessels.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the matter of Irish lights. A financial agreement was reached in 1985 whereby the Irish Government now makes an annual contribution to the costs that are incurred in the Republic. After a transitional period, Irish sources of light dues and contributions will meet 50 per cent. of the costs in the Republic.
Enhanced redundancy terms for lighthouse keepers are initially a matter for the general lighthouse authorities in their capacity as employer, but approval from the Department would be required to sanction any increase in expenditure in redundancy compensation.
The keepers who are in the service of the Northern Lighthouse Board have sought improved terms to compensate for the loss of tied housing. The redundancy terms, which are based on those of the Civil Service, are already generous and for keepers they already take account of their tied housing. The Department had to reject an earlier proposal which would have added between £2 million and £4 million to the costs of the automation programme, but we are prepared to consider some more modest proposals if the NLB believes that there is a case for them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will find that helpful.
I hope that what I have said will reassure hon. Members that we are aware of the problems that face shipowners on the one hand and the authorities and their staff on the other. The Government's primary concern is to secure an efficient and cost-effective system of navigational aids that are appropriate to the needs of marine users.
It is not in dispute that a service to the mariner is required if safety at sea is to be maintained, but it is a service which is necessarily adapting to changing circumstances and technology. With the co-operation of the lighthouse authorities our objective is to continue the process of reducing the costs of the service and improving its management.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that during the course of this short debate I have been able to cover most of the points that he raised and that he will take some reassurance from them.

Mr. Roger Stott: I apologise to the House and to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for being absent at the beginning of the debate. Unfortunately, the provision of public transport in the capital city at 4 am is not what it should be and I have the dubious pleasure of having walked to the House from Lambeth.
I listened with interest to that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech that I heard. The hon. Gentleman spoke with knowledge of his constituency and with concern, which is shared by many of us, about the position that is currently enveloping the lighthouse service.
I think that the hon. Gentleman played some part in the debates on the reorganisation of the pilotage service. Many of us on the Opposition benches were concerned about the way that the Government were proposing to allow exemption certificates for masters and foreign masters who use British ports on a regular basis. They would be able to gain exemption certificates and they would not necessarily need a pilot. In my view, and that of the United Kingdom Pilots Association, that was a retrograde and detrimental step. The current thinking in the Department of Transport, whether on pilotage or lights, does not satisfy many of us in respect of the safety provisions that we all feel are necessary for British merchant shipping.
I readily accept that there is an argument that modern electronic navigational techniques make lights and buoys unnecessary. That may be so, but it assumes that a ship and those navigational aids are functioning properly. If there is any problem on board ship and the aids are not functioning properly, those involved have to resort to traditional navigation methods using lighthouses, buoys and the Decca navigational system. I contend that that system is essential. No matter what it costs, it needs to be maintained and available at all times as a fallback. I do not think that the House would readily agree to any reduction in the provision of safety around our coasts caused by the withdrawal of lighthouses, foghorns, buoys or any other type of navigational aid currently in place. I understand what the Minister says about the current review and his unwillingness to comment until its findings are made public. Perhaps we can debate that matter when those views are made public.
I am conscious of the time. I see that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is waiting for the next debate and that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is duly in his place at 5.20 am, so I should like to make a final point. It is a great pity that, because of the general election's intervention, we were denied the opportunity of an hour and a half's debate on the Opposition prayer on the increase in light dues. I have to say in honesty to the Minister that, even at this early hour of the morning, I found his defence of the increase in light dues utterly pathetic. The total cost of the provision of lights around the United Kingdom is about £40 million. In overall Exchequer terms, that is a drop in the bucket. It is insignificant. It could well be paid out of central Exchequer funds, as it is in almost every major maritime country, but instead the Government have done as all


Governments have done—my Government did it just as the Minister's Government are doing it now—and have imposed a levy on ship owners and port authorities. According to the Port Users Association, an increase of 14 per cent. in light dues means an increase of about £1 million for certain ship owners. That must be a massive disincentive for ships to come to the United Kingdom.
The Minister is as aware as I am of the demise of the British Merchant Navy and our port industry. The Government should have constructive policies and a proper strategy for shipping and ports, instead of putting a spanner in the works by increasing light dues. I reject the ethos behind the Minister's speech, which implies that it is not possible for the Treasury to take on board what is a minor cost to it but a major cost to the shipping industry. It is time that the Government sat down and thought about the damage that they are doing by simply hiking up the costs and charges imposed on an already overburdened shipping industry.

Mr. David Mitchell: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) started with some rather snide remarks about the lack of transport services at 4.30 am in the capital city. If it were appropriate, I would have referred to the hon. Gentleman as the foolish virgin for not having made prior arrangements to ensure, as other hon. Members have, that he got to the House on time.
The hon. Gentleman raised the subject of the traditional aids which he seeks to defend, almost brick by brick and stone by stone, as though no technological

advances were taking place. If the hon. Gentleman reflects on what he said, I am sure that he will feel that there is some inconsistency in his expressing a desire to retain all of the existing aids while technological advance means that there are other ways in which to secure safe navigation.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a 14 per cent. increase in light dues and said that it is not justified. About half of that cost arises from the Decca Navigator being a cost now taken on by the general lighthouse fund which was not formerly carried by that fund, so we are talking about a 7 per cent. increase in costs. Moreover, it is not a 7 per cent. increase in one year. Lighthouse funds have drawn on reserves recently. It is not possible to draw on reserves for ever. The hon. Gentleman must demonstrate that the reserves are still larger than they need to be. He did not, and unless he can make out such a case, he cannot deploy an argument against a 7 per cent. increase.
The hon. Gentleman takes the view that the Exchequer should pay, although a previous Labour Government concluded that dues should continue to be paid on the traditional basis. He said that the cost is £40 million, but it is £63 million. He said that it is a burden on the United Kingdom shipping industry, but he fails to take account of the fact that 90 per cent. of light dues are paid by foreign shipping. He is suggesting that this sum should be paid by United Kingdom taxpayers. The logic behind that statement is not as impressive as I would expect from the hon. Gentleman. It is perhaps understandable that his logic is not as impeccable as normal at such an hour of the morning.
No doubt we shall return to these matters, when I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be thinking a little more clearly.

Orders of the Day — Social Workers

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I listened with considerable attention to the interesting attempt to separate the men from the buoys. I am delighted that there is little danger of your becoming automated, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I am to step out of order, I would far rather have your eyes flashing at me in disapproval than some automated blinker.
The point of the debate is to try to clear up some of the misunderstandings about social workers which I do not think it is unfair to suggest are shared by some hon. Members and are widely held by the public. For that reason, it is a sensible subject to raise in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill even if I were the only hon. Member to speak. I am delighted, however, to see the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) here to add their considerable understanding to the debate.
I speak partly as the outgoing chairman of the parliamentary panel for personal and social services, but I do not expect—I do not think that I am qualified—to dazzle the cognoscenti of the social worker world. I hope that any experts who read what I have to say will not be too contemptuous of the simplicity of my approach.
What is a social worker? Twenty four thousand 800 qualified and unqualified social workers are employed by social service departments in England and Wales—one for every 1,900 persons. This exludes the probation officers, who are also social workers, but who are in a different service. This compares with one general practitioner for every 2,000 persons in England and one police constable for every 550 persons.
By no means are all social workers young and inexperienced. For a long time there was a belief that most social workers were dolly birds with neither experience nor good training. One third of the intake to the certificate of social service training courses at the start of a career are aged between 35 and 44. The spread of age thoughout the profession is comparable to that in any other profession.
Social workers are to be found mostly in social service departments, but around 16 per cent. of them work in the voluntary sector, some work in private practice and some are attached to the armed services. It is perhaps also worth saying in this child's guide to the profession, that where teachers have pupils and doctors have patients, social workers, like lawyers, have clients.
Social workers mostly do what Parliament tells them to do. More than 36 principal Acts govern their work. We in the House shower regulations upon them as if we wanted to give them some sort of ticker tape welcome. Their duties include the requirement to help children either in trouble or at risk of being so, both in their own homes and when removed from their homes and to help disabled and handicapped people in residential care and in their own homes. The pressure to empty the huge institutions not only moves an individual from residential care into the community but also transfers financial responsibility from the National Health Service to local authorities.
It is worth noting that efficiency improvements in the hospital services, such as the faster turnround of patients and the greater use of hospital beds, throws added burdens on to social service departments, usually with no additional resources allocated to meet them. They also

have a duty to help to look after the elderly. This is a rapidly growing source of demand that is outrunning the provision of resources. Our present Ministers have done a great deal to get more resources in real terms, but in 1984–85—the last year for which I have figures—the number of meals provided, the number of home-help hours and the number of local authority-supported residents in old people's homes had fallen to 91 per cent., 85 per cent., and 74 per cent. respectively of the 1978–79 levels. What is more, the age of the elderly has increased. In my own constituency, Kent County Council spends 85 per cent. of its budget for the elderly on the over-85s.
The clients of social services departments are disproportionately from among the poor and disadvantaged, but we should remember that thousands of clients have difficulties that have little or nothing to do with being poor and the tendency, prevalent in our society, to attach importance to a service relative to what one might quote as the importance of its clientele has only to be described to be seen to be disgraceful.
What sort of people are social workers? Social workers are taught that it is more important to listen than to talk, more important to assist a client to work out his or her own solution than to direct and better to help a client identify and use their own or their family resources than to depend on outside help. As the Barclay report said:
The aim of social workers will always be to create a relationship with their clients so that the tasks are accomplished in partnership by people who share some measure of trust and understanding.
If that is the goal, social work will attract into its ranks men and women who are different from most recruits into other professions, even those concerned directly with helping others. Many policemen will get caught up in the complexity of human motivation or the subtleties of cultural difference hut, on the whole, police recruits want to be able easily to differentiate right from wrong and to see that the wrongdoer is caught and punished.
For many lawyers, it is precisely the ability to separate the key issues in a legal dispute and to achieve the best for their client that is their strength. To weigh one family member's interests against another is often to betray that trust. That is why our adversarial legal system often exacerbates family disputes.
If, as has been said,
social workers will always be bound to put into practice in their work a respect for persons and to see other people in all the complexity of their life, relationships and environment",
it is small wonder if they sometimes come, like Voltaire, to believe: "Tout comprendre c'est tout pardonnez." Therein lies another danger.
If one has a profession that not only recruits compassionate people in the first place but then spends much of their training teaching them how to ensure that their clients receive all the resources to which they are entitled, encourages them to develop family and community networks of support and to become more articulate and effective in standing up for themselves, its members will naturally tend to become the champions of the poor, the deprived and the powerless. Indeed, for many social workers that becomes a major role and many critics of social work base their attacks on a perception that individual social workers are less effective in pursuing that role than they feel they ought to be.
I believe that that places social workers in a serious double jeopardy. It leads many of them into accepting a narrow and often transiently fashionable view of what are


and are not acceptable policies. For example, many social workers seem to believe that public provision of services is incontrovertibly superior to private provision. I have met social workers who seem to think that if a pensioner, for example, chooses to pay for private residential accommodation and outlives his or her capacity to keep up the payments they should be, as it were, punished by being put much further back in the queue for local authority help than someone who, for whatever reason, has never made the effort to contribute in that way. That has to be nonsense.
If, on the whole, people in Britain are to continue to enjoy the rising real incomes and stability of personal savings that the Government have delivered successfully over the past eight years, the partnership between private resources and public funds has to be accepted joyfully and effectively defined and developed. There is also the danger of undermining one of the objectives of good case work; the liberation of a client to enable him or her once again to determine their own future. If the habit of blaming the system becomes too ingrained, it can easily lead to ignoring altogether the part played by some clients in the creation of their own difficulties.
It is noteworthy that that theme never appears in, for example, the classic study of study work practice, the Barclay report. Not only is it bad social work; it is bad politics. It hands to those who do not want to know the real condition of the poor a perfect excuse for not listening to the voice of social work when it is raised on their behalf. That is one reason I welcome the decision of the four professional associations to establish the parliamentary panel and why I have been pleased to play a small part in it.
It is not only appropriate but necessary for social workers to inform Government and the public about the work that they do and the conditions in which they do it. I am equally sure that that task has to be performed with accuracy, relevance and as clear an understanding as possible of the practical choices open to Government and to social services departments. For far too long, medicine or the economics of benefit have dominated discussions of policies that are directed at improving the conditions of the least fortunate in society. It is high time that social work and social services played a role proportionate to their importance. Yet social workers are required by Parliament frequently to act both as rationers and gatekeepers, on behalf of the taxpayer saying no to clients' demands for more benefit or better services. More often than not, it is their decision whether a child stays at home or is taken into care, whether an old person gets a place in a home or stays with the exhausted carer, or whether a mentally handicapped person stays in an institution or goes out into the community.
They are powerful decisions, and are seen by the public to be so. Moreover, if a decision goes badly wrong—if a child who is kept with a family suffers abuse or dies—the press and the public will not hesitate to vilify a social worker. They will instantly forget that, yesterday, they enjoyed articles that lambasted social workers for destroying homes and removing parents' rights. They will seldom remember that social work is dangerous. In the past three years, four social workers were killed on duty. That is more than the number of police deaths. Few field workers have not been physically assaulted in the course

of their work. Frightened social workers must find it even harder to do the sensitive work of finding the strengths in a client group and helping someone to build on them to climb out of their personal abyss.
The present furore about child abuse will, I hope, be salutary and bring everyone's attention to bear on the muddle that is society's attitude to its own members. I welcome the appointment that was announced today of a senior woman judge to examine the issues raised in Cleveland. I have no intention of seeking to prejudge them here, but I will say that, in Britain, we have nugatory training for people in how to be parents, nugatory support networks for parents, and severe restraints on the right of anyone to intervene between parents and their children.
When one in three marriages ends in divorce and stepparents multiply, these deficiencies are daunting. When we add to them the fact that every social worker knows that when a child is taken from his home, his chances of returning satisfactorily to it diminish sharply after a mere six weeks and become sadly dim after 12 months, it is hardly surprising that they are reluctant to remove a child in the first instance. That is why the work of the interdepartmental working party reviewing the legislation on children is important. It seeks to define the sort of partnership between a local authority and parents, which holds out some hope of a successful outcome for a child who is taken into care for a period.
It also seeks a system that will cut down the delay in working out a proper arrangement. At present, the system can take nine months or more to deliver a proper regime of care for a child who is at risk. What is more, many of us feel strongly that the present adversarial system for dealing with children's cases is wholly inappropriate. When I worked in Scotland, I played a part in the introduction of children's hearings—a largely non-adversarial system for trying rapidly to reach an agreed regime for children in trouble.
Will the Minister tell us when we can expect real progress towards a similar system in England and Wales? Call it a family court or whatever, but we need something.
There are other burning issues in social work; one is training. For five long and substantially confused years, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work has argued about a third year of training for professional social workers. Ministers are soon to pronounce on their latest and, I have to say, much their best version of its proposals. I think that the new director and chairman of the central council are some of the best news for social work for a long time.
Everyone agrees that social workers need more training; everyone agrees that the present mix of CSS and CQSW is unsatisfactory. The question is whether a combined pre-entry training lasting some three years, and adding some £40 million to the training bill, is the best solution. It is the solution that the Beckford inquiry pressed for. Would it be better to offer the third year later and, if that were the decision, would it be honoured in practice? We also know that between 80 ad 90 per cent. of all residential staff have no professional qualifications. What can and should be done about that? Perhaps the Minister will give us some clues this morning.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Is there not a risk of putting too much emphasis upon technical and professional qualifications and too little emphasis upon common sense?

Mr. Rowe: One person's common sense is another person's prejudice, but one has to be extremely wary of being mesmerised by training. I remember Lord Kilbrandon saying: "If we are not careful, the way we are going now, we will have to have a qualification before helping an old woman across the road." But I take my hon. Friend's point. Ther is a substantial risk that qualified social workers constantly run into problems with which they are unable to cope.
I ask whether they would be better off having a longer pre-entry time for training, or whether it would be better to have the extra time later in their career when they have hit their head on the ceiling with their knowledge once or twice before they absorb any more. That is a serious question about which there is considerable division in the social work world, although the present proposals by the central council have been welcomed by social workers.
Then there is accountability. At its crudest, what is to be done about the unfit social worker and about the use of the term 'social worker', which at present describes anyone, including bricklayers? I have just seen an advertisement of a bricklayer building a wall and being called a social worker because he is doing it in an inner city. The term 'social worker' covers everyone from bricklayers to agony aunts.
Many people in social work believe that the time has come for the Government to create a social work council which will be empowered to regulate the profession. But there are hazards in the proposal. If it were still further to undervalue the non-professionally qualified people in social work, or if it should occupy itself with trade union matters rather than the broad sweep of social work professionalism, it would become like the stick in the fairy tale, which the scolding old woman summoned out of the sack, to her lasting chastisement. Yet it is surely strange that a major profession should have so little control over its affairs. I should be glad to hear from the Minister some of her thoughts on that.
Two other matters and then I am done. The first concerns one of the central tenets of social work practice; working with others and making maximum use of all resources. The Cleveland affair has demonstrated dramatically the importance of different professions working together to a common end, but it should be the same in all facets of social work.
There is no doubt, for example, that in developing community care the closest co-operation between professions, voluntary organisations and members of the public is absolutely essential. In my part of Kent we have so far achieved miracles of rehabilitation for many clients as they leave hospital for a place in the community. It is all due to skilful and dedicated working together.
That is why I was appalled to learn that in some areas, health authorities, suddenly aware that they are losing resources and influence as patients turn into clients, are establishing separate, health-dominated community care systems. Even worse, Mr. Utting—chief social work inspector at the Department of Health and Social Services—told the parliamentary panel for personal social services that not only did he not know that, but he probably never would have known of it as it was of no direct concern to the Department. I ask the Minister to comment on that potentially disastrous waste of resources and on the Department's role in preventing that.
I wish to draw attention to the huge importance of both the voluntary sector and the volunteers to social workers

and their clients. Simply to mention the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Dr. Barnado's, Age Concern or the Spastics Society is sufficient to remind the House how rich we are in devotion and expertise outside Government ranks. I mightily applaud the growing willingness of social services departments not only to work with voluntary organisations, but to clarify and define their mutual roles. Volunteers form a vein of ever-richer value, whether that is tapped by organisations such as Community Service Volunteers or directly by social services departments and hospital authorities. One person in five in Britain already offers help on a regular—at least monthly—basis.
It is devoutly to be hoped that the process will continue as more and more people have disposable time, disposable income and varied skills and experience to offer, and at a much earlier stage in their career than hitherto. Social workers will need to become ever more skilful at working with them. In that way society can, perhaps, go some way towards healing itself. For far too long we have cared with our voices, clamouring for someone to do something about the problems that are too complex, too distressing, too messy or too dangerous for us to face. That someone has usually been the social worker, trying desperately to meet the conflicting demands made of him by the prejudices, fears and carelessness of the rest of us. We in Parliament, like the rest of society, owe a great deal to social workers. Above all, we owe them understanding and support in their difficult role.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on his profoundly thoughtful speech in the debate that he initiated on social workers. It is of value to the House and the country that, from time to time, hon. Members enter into the discussion on the work of certain specialised professions. My hon. Friend has done that in depth, and we are in his debt.
I wish to share my hon. Friend's general tribute to social workers and the value of their work both to the community and to individuals in need of their help. I hope that my hon. Friend did not mind my intervention. We live in a society that places undue emphasis on professional qualifications. Of course people need to be good at their jobs, and of course they need to know how to do them. There must be some means of testing to be sure that they know how to do them, and that is the purpose of a professional qualification. However, a professional qualification is a necessary, but not in itself a sufficient; condition of being able to do a job well. In addition, to do a complicated and important job people need gift, flair, insight and wisdom, and those cannot come solely from book learning, technical expertise or even from experience. They must also owe something to talent. Nowhere is this more necessary than in social work. We are all aware of the difficulties under which social workers have to operate and of how easy it is, with hindsight, to be critical when things go wrong. We are all aware of the special need for insight as well as professional qualifications.
I wish to refer to a constituency case involving social workers. For the past few days a little girl aged four and a half years has been in the burns unit of Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton, having been badly scalded by


boiling water. The case is distressing and worrying, and yesterday I felt it necessary to draw the facts, as far as I knew them, to the attention of the Twickenham police.
Just over a year ago the social services department of the Richmond upon Thames borough council was warned that the little girl in question, Joy Scott Chaney, could be in danger. The warning came from a highly responsible and respected person who runs an excellent playgroup. Having noticed a considerable amount of bruising on the child, this lady was sufficiently concerned to bring the matter to the attention of the social services department of the Richmond upon Thames borough council.
A circular had been sent by the council to all independent playgroup proprietors. It said:
If you have any concern about a child in your care, please contact the social work team for your area.
That is exactly what the lady did. A case conference was called. I quote from the case papers:
On the evening of 27 June 1986 the playgroup proprietor
whom I shall not now name
telephoned Mrs. Dolton, an assistant day-care advisor, to express concern about serious bruising that her staff had noticed on Joy's arms and abdomen in the course of the week. Mrs. Dolton subsequently referred the matter to the Twickenham intake team for investigation. On 30 June 1986, Mr. Burridge, duty social worker, visited the kindergarten and was informed that frequent bruising had been noted on the child during recent months and recorded in a note book by staff as follows:

24 April 1986—Very severe bruising noted on Joy's forehead. Father stated that she had tripped over his foot whilst out shopping.
28 April—Joy covered in bruises, some very livid, behind her left knee especially.
6 May—New bruising noted on child's arms, two the size of a 5p coin on the front of her arms just above her elbows and smaller, less distinct ones in a row on the back of her arm.
15 May—New bruise noted in the mid-back of the left thigh.
19 May—Large bruise and lump noted on forehand and graze on nose. Child stated that she fell over whilst at somebody else's house.
13 June—Large bruises noted on the child's legs on return from holiday. Mother informed staff that there was `nothing to worry about' and that Joy was unhappy and just needed to settle again.
17 June—Bruising on front of Joy's legs, especially around her knees. (She was wearing thick tights.) There was also bruising on her left inner ribs, the size of a 5p coin.
27 June—Fresh bruising noted on the middle of child's back and more on the right side of her waist. Also a very nasty bruise the size of a large egg on the right side at front waist level and more on her thighs the size of a lop coin. Whilst at the kindergarten Mr. Burridge noted the extent of bruising on the child on a skin map, having observed Joy at play."
At a subsequent conference, two weeks after the previous case conference—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order; I can barely hear the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel).

Mr. Jessel: At a subsequent conference, medical opinion suggested that the bruising could have been caused entirely by a blood condition. However, medical opinion in this matter is not unanimous.
Yesterday I showed the papers to a distinguished doctor, the former dean of a medical school of one of the great London teaching hospitals. He was thus responsible

for the training of hundreds of doctors. He was highly sceptical of the suggestion that so much bruising, occurring in a short time of a few weeks, could be explained solely in terms of a blood condition coupled with ordinary childhood collisions.
On the face of it, it appears that the view of the former dean of the medical school was one of common sense. The doctor who examined the child was a junior doctor, a registrar, with nowhere near consultant status. That doctor should not have had the last word. I believe that in such sensitive matters we should all make a point of remembering the wise advice of Sir Winston Churchill:
Experts should be kept on tap and not on top.
A second case conference decided that the child's name should not be placed on the child abuse register—based on the advice of the doctor to whom I have just referred. The child's health and development were to be monitored by out-patient appointments at the West Middlesex hospital and by the general practitioner and the community health services. It was agreed that there was to be
no on-going social work involvement as the parents are opposed to such intervention".
I believe that this last decision was wrong.
Once it was decided not to place the child on the child abuse list, there was insufficient follow-up by the Richmond upon Thames social services department. Little if anything was done to inform the infant school attended by the child that the child may have been in danger. It has since become clear that both the head of that infant school, Stanley road infant school at Teddington and the nursery class teacher had cause to feel somewhat worried about the child during the ensuring year.
I am concerned that when the child was taken into hospital with severe scalding the social services department was not informed. It appears that, following the two case conferences, there was an element of complacency in the social services department of the borough council about the dangers that the child faced.
I do not think that anyone can criticise the playgroup proprietor for referring the case to me. She is a responsible person, the wife of a solicitor, and her playgroup is of first-class repute. That lady had first gone through the proper procedures by referring the case to the borough council. With her experience and knowledge of small children, she had felt cause for continuing concern about this child, and events have tragically proved her right.
I hope that the borough council will look into its procedures to see what can be done to reduce the risk to other children. I ask also that my hon. Friend make inquiries about what happened, with a view to preventing any recurrence.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I first say how much I welcome the fact that you have taken the Chair and say what a pleasure it will be to speak in this debate with you presiding over it. I should like to welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has chosen this as the subject of his debate.
In 1982 Peter Barclay said that social workers had two main functions—the organisation of social work and counselling. That remains the case today but th demands that are being made on social workers and the context in


which they carry out those two functions are altering dramatically. Social workers are required to paper over the cracks in an increasingly divided society.
The cruel increase in unemployment subjects families to stresses and strains that lead to increasing demands, which need an increasing response from social workers. The increasing demands that are placed by unemployment on social work are recognised by the Association of Directors of Social Services, by the British Association of Social Workers and by many other professional organisations.
The dramatic increase in the number of people who are dependent on benefits means more work for social workers as they try to help people who are struggling on inadequate incomes. The deteriorating conditions in the inner cities mean that more people turn to social workers for help. Social workers may, for example, try to help a family through a crisis that is caused by inadequate housing. In my own constituency I know that social workers are increasingly involved in desperate attempts by families who are under pressure and who are trying to get rehoused in a situation where the housing pool is disintegrating rather than increasing. In the inner cities, social workers are often called upon, for example, to help a woman who has become addicted to tranquillisers that might have become necessary initially because of anxiety caused by repeatedly being burgled. In the inner cities, social workers are often called upon to help youngsters who are starting to drop out of school and who start to sniff glue.
I am talking not only about an increase in the work load of social workers but about work that is becoming more stressful, difficult and frustrating as the circumstances of their clients become more and more difficult. As the hon. Member for Mid-Kent said, social workers are increasingly subject to attack. We know that the incidence of attacks by clients on their social workers has increased dramatically. I do not believe that we know the full extent of that because social workers are reluctant to report such incidents because they want to encourage and help their clients. They are trained to put themselves second and not to speak out about their own problems. Therefore, I do not think that we know the full extent of physical attacks on social workers. There should be some initiative to collect information nationally about the level of those attacks which are of growing concern.
Social workers go—and must go—to places where even the postman is not prepared to go and where the milkman may have ceased delivery. Doctors will not visit certain estates, yet it is expected that social workers will go, often on their own, into people's homes, in circumstances in which many other professionals or employees would not go. I hope that the Minister may take the opportunity to report to us on the progress of the inquiry into the death of Isobel Schwatz.
I have already mentioned the increase in the problems caused by Government policy that cause problems for the clients whom the social workers help to look after. Demographic changes have also increased the work load for social workers. Obviously, we welcome the fact that people with disabilities have a much greater survival rate, but that often means that they need more help. People are living a great deal longer, which means that more people need social work help, even if it is only to assess their need of other services.

Mr. Rowe: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is 11 years since Amelia Harris did her great study on old people?

Does she agree that our understanding of old people in need, particularly the statistics for them, is badly in need of updating?

Ms. Harman: Absolutely. We are dealing with a whole range of statistics which are out of date because of the shape of the population and the increasing number, not only of elderly people, but of very elderly people.
The changes in the approach to social work, most of which are welcome, have also increased the responsibility on social workers. It has been recognised that services must be more consumer friendly which has meant allowing those who need the services to plan and choose their services. Obviously, that requires social workers to be more flexible in allowing their clients to have a say, which places extra demands on social workers. That change from handing out paternalistic, patronising, pre-packaged services, as was sometimes the case in the past, has placed an extra demand on social workers.
It has been recognised that greater help must be given to carers and that social work departments cannot leave people who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives on their own and excluded from social services. That again, has opened up a whole new area of demand on social workers. Care in the community, as the Government are currently operating it, has cast on to the shoulders of already over-committed social workers the responsibility for supporting in the community people who would previously have been in residential care. I know that it causes social workers great anxiety that they have the responsibility of assessing the needs of someone who is moving into the community from an institution and of smoothing that path when the social workers do not have adequate back-up facilities in the social work department to make the transition an easy one for all concerned.
Several steps in relation to social work are overdue. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent mentioned the funding of a third year of social work training. Obviously, we all believe that social workers should have common sense and we can all think of examples where more common sense was needed, but that does not mean that we should ignore the growing consensus for a third year of training. If it is right to demand high standards of professionalism arid competence, it is right to recognise the training implications of those demands.
It is also important to provide sufficient funding to social work departments to meet the additional problems that I have identified as arising from unemployment, poverty and the extra responsibilities of community care. The Government have had rather a cheek in claiming the credit for an increase in spending on personal social services when that increase has been largely in Labour-controlled authorities which have refused to make cuts arid insisted on improving and expanding services to meet the growing demands.
It is outrageous for the Government on the one hand to tell social services departments to spend less, and on the other hand to claim the credit when spending by social services departments improves. The Government cannot have it both ways. I accept the points raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent about the general social work council, and that point needs more attention and discussion. It is certainly heading in the right direction.
I want to make several brief points about child abuse and child care. The public must choose whether they want a witch hunt or good social policy. I believe that we cannot


have both. At the moment there appears to by hysteria and witch hunts, rather than a sensible discussion of child care policy. The hysteria and witch hunting that developed following the tragic death of Jasmine Beckford are now developing in Cleveland. It provides a climate in which it is impossible to make sensible and calm judgments about what is in the best interests of individual children and in which direction the policy for helping children at risk should lead.
I know that it is difficult not to be emotive, because we are talking about vulnerable children who cannot speak up for themselves and the topic invokes revulsion in everyone. On the other hand, we are also concerned with the rights of parents to bring up their own children and the terror that can be struck in parents' hearts at the thought that a child will be taken away. This is an emotive issue, but it is important that we do not allow a climate of hysteria to be whipped up.
It is also a shame that no parliamentary time has yet been set aside for child care law reform. There is a wide concensus about the work that has been carried out in that area and parliamentary time should be set aside for implementing those plans.
It is also a shame that there is no firm proposal yet on when we are to see the introduction of family courts. Some of us feel like parrots, as we have to raise this issue so often. The problem is that there is no longer any reason not to introduce family courts. There is unprecedented agreement on the need for such courts and the form that those courts have taken. I do not believe that events in Cleveland would have developed as they have if the Social Services, the medical authorities and the parents had had the benefit of the involvement of a family court early in the development of the incidents and reformed child care law as the framework within which the family court could operate. I welcome the Government's inquiry. I hope that it will conclude speedily and will stop finding excuses for not taking measures that all in the profession are agreed are necessary.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): Madam Deputy Speaker, may I begin by joining the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) in saying that it is entirely appropriate that you should be presiding over our activities at this strange hour of the morning. I suspect that this might be the first time ever in the House when both Opposition and Government Benches and the Chair have been occupied by women. We give notice to the rest of our colleagues that women are on the march and I hope that more women will join this place and help to serve our people.
I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on his success in the ballot, in one of our quainter rituals of the House, I congratulate him on introducing such an important subject upon which he spoke with the erudition and sensitivity which the subject has long required but which it has not always met in the House.
My hon. Friend referred to the parliamentary panel on personal social service that was set up in the House during the previous Parliament. He knows that when I was a Back Bencher I was in touch with that committee. The

establishment of the panel was long overdue and its work is very valuable. My hon. Friend will also be aware that I served for seven years on a major metropolitan social services committee and chaired that committee. I learned then about the terrible things that people do—particularly, perhaps, to their children. But I also learned about the incredible courage, fortitude and endurance of many others, especially the long-term sick and the disabled, and those coping with such people. I recognised, and hope at all times to act upon. their demand to be treated first as human beings and citizens, so that they retain their rights—and, indeed, their obligations—along with the rest of us. But most of all I learned a healthy respect for the skills and the insights of social workers, and I am glad to say that I agree with a great deal of what has been said tonight.
Social workers work in many settings and for many different employers. It is worth remembering that they do not all work for local authorities, and that they are not all employed in the same way. They work in hospitals, fieldwork teams and residential institutions; often they work unseen in the domiciliary setting of other people's homes. A large number work for voluntary organisations, and about 24,000 work for local authorities. Nowadays, nearly all of those who work for local authorities are qualified in one way or another.
Social workers who work in the social services departments are charged to perform tasks that mainly arise from the powers and duties given by their employers to Parliament. They are the majority. In this important sense, social workers are public servants working on behalf of their employers and of society—in other words, the rest of us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent referred to child care law, and I shall go into some of the issues in detail. However, before I do so, it is worth remembering and perhaps reinforcing the fact that social workers are involved in far more than child care. They are involved with every age group, particularly the elderly, and especially those without close relatives. They are involved with the mentally handicapped—even more so with the strenuous efforts now being made through the community care programme to improve the quality of life for those people. They are involved with the mentally ill, and in that respect psychiatrically trained social workers have a particular part to play.
Social workers are often in the role of gophers—intermediaries—and, as a result, they may take the blame when others fail to deliver. The successes are not always seen, and I believe that the efforts required to produce those successes are rarely understood and frequently underestimated by the general public. That is well illustrated by Wally Harbert, OBE, director of social services for Avon county council, writing in last week's Social Services Insight. In a wry and humorous piece about how the status of social workers might be improved, he suggests that one answer might be to introduce insignia for presenting to persons in other organisations who have distinguished themselves in personal social services activities—a sort of Legion d'Honneur. He says:
It would go to head teachers who retained troublesome children in their schools, geriatricians who found beds for dying patients, paediatricians who made the same statements in court about child abuse as they made in case conferences, and housing officers who found accommodation for mentally


ill people. A special award would be for newspaper editors who produced such unlikely headlines as Social Worker Saves Child".
I must say that I have considerable sympathy with that point of view.
Local authorities determine their own priorities, and it is for them to decide how they should meet the need for social work and other aspects of the important work that we have been discussing. In the rate support grant settlements, the Government set indicative figures for individual local authority services. Those figures take account of the demographic and similar pressures on the personal social services. In successive rate grant settlements, the year-on-year increase in the personal social services indicative figure has been higher than for local government services as a whole in order to reflect those pressures. Between 1978–79 and 1987–88, expenditure on the personal social services grew in cost terms by 34 per cent., and by over 10 per cent. more than was required to meet demographic and other pressures. In 1986–87, the net current expenditure growth was 8·5 per cent. This year, the provisional figure is 4·7 per cent. That makes a total of a 13 per cent. increase over the past two years. The money is available.
Government plans have usually reflected the fact that personal social services are subject to such pressures as the growth in the number of elderly people—particularly the very elderly—increasing numbers of difficult children, and the need to take on the taper of joint finance and unemployment. That has been calculated at 2·5 per cent. per year, from which 0·5 per cent. has been deducted to take account of efficiency savings. In this year's expenditure group report, a further 1 per cent., or £27 million, was added to take account of the need to build up services in the community. Potential savings were also netted off to deal with other pressures, such as AIDS and drug abuse, and also with the need for substantial additional investment in social services training. The new figure—a 3·5 per cent. increase—has been fully reflected in local authority current expenditure levels for 1987–88 and amounts to an additional 7 per cent. in cash terms.
I was also asked about meals on wheels and other domiciliary services. We covered some of these issues in our debate on 14 May 1987. As I said then, the number of meals served by the meals on wheels service has risen by £43 million a year during the life of this Government, and 70 per cent. of those meals are delivered to people in their own homes. The number of home helps has increased by 14 per cent. There are now 53,000 full-time equivalents. A substantial army of people are helping others to remain in their own homes.
This rate of growth is rather less than the rate of growth in the directly managed services of the National Health Service. It is due to the fact that this Government run the NHS services more directly than the personal social services which, as the hon. Member for Peckham rightly pointed out, are often run by Labour-controlled councils whose priorities are different.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) referred to a particularly sad case: to the injuries to a little girl who so incongruously is named Joy. He has passed the papers to me. I shall look urgently into the matter, and I hope to be able to deal with it.

Mr. Jessel: The papers that I have passed to my hon. Friend refer to the bruising that was caused a year ago. In my speech I referred to recent serious injury by scalding.

It is the conjunction of those events, rather than the events taken separately, that is so serious. One child has suffered far too many injuries.

Mrs. Currie: Without yet having had an opportunity to study the papers, I agree with my hon. Friend's last comment, and I shall be very glad to look into the matter.
The hon. Member for Peckham referred to the inquiry into the death of Isabel Schwarz. I shall find out exactly what the state of play is as at 14 July and will write to the hon. Lady. If she wishes me to do so, I shall put that information in the Library.

Mr. Rowe: I have been informed today—Monday in this House—that the inquiry into that case reopened on Monday and that again it is in closed session because of the nature of some of the medical evidence.

Mrs. Currie: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He is several hours ahead of me on that issue.
The Government take very seriously the violence that is inflicted on social workers and other care services staff. My hon. Friend Lady Trumpington chaired a working party on violence against not just social workers but NHS staff and those who work in social security offices. That responsibility has been taken on by my hon. Friend Lord Skelmersdale, the new Under-Secretary of State. In the last few days the chief inspector, Mr. Utting, has sent papers to all the local authorities. We believe that they will assist local authorities in the management and organisation of their services so that problems and conflict can be avoided. When there is conflict, the staff will be able to cope with it.
In May, the Association of Directors of Social Services sent out some thoroughly sensible guidelines. Partly as a result of recent tragic cases involving the death of social workers and attacks upon them, some progress is now being made. There is better training of staff. They now know both how to avoid problems and how to deal with them.
Several hon. Members mentioned the child care law and the necessity for reform. The Government accept that the existing child care legislation is confused, and that it is confusing for social workers in doing their work, and that it urgently needs reform. Our proposals are set out in the White Paper and have followed, in many instances, the views of the Select Committee of which I was a member. We believe that the proposals will lead to a greater clarity of purpose, will bring parents and public bodies into a closer partnership and will be more fair than the current arrangements to children and their families. The Government are committed to enacting this legislation at the earliest opportunity.
Perhaps it is appropriate, since we have talked a lot about reforming the law, to bear in mind exactly what the White Paper has suggested that we might do. We will take into account in the exact formulation of the proposals that will be put before the House, the results of the current inquiries. Broadly speaking, I feel that many of the suggestions that we have made in the Select Committee report and in the White Paper are along the right lines, and I would be glad to hear the views of hon. Members as to whether they feel that to be the case.
The White Paper's proposals are wide-ranging. The key points include a positive statement of the role of local authorities in promoting the care and upbringing of children within their families, which will generally be in the


child's interests. Local authorities' existing statutory responsibilities towards children for whom they are caring away from home will be recast. The changes will build on existing welfare principle that governs local authority decisions about a child for whom they are caring. The local authority will be under an obligation to safeguard and promote the health, education, development and welfare of the child, and in particular to afford him opportunities for the proper development of his character and abilities. The authority will continue to be required to give due consideration to his wishes and feelings in these matters and to his religous persuasion and racial and cultural background. In addition, the authority will continue to be under a duty to review the child's position every six months.
Children and young people who are leaving care may face difficulties in adjusting to the change in their circumstances, so two changes to local authorities' duties are proposed. First, they would be required—we wish to make it as strong as that—to advise and assist children and the young people for whom they are caring so as to promote their welfare when that care ends. Secondly, the prevous duty to advise and befriend all those who leave care after leaving school, provided that their welfare requires it and that they request it, which currently lasts until 18 years of age, will be extended to cover those up to the age of 21 years. Those proposals are in the White Paper in chapter three.
For children who are looked after under voluntary arrangements an emphasis will be on a partnership between parents and the local authority in caring for their child. The local authority's responsibility for planning its care to extend to all such children, including those who are handicapped, will be emphasised for, I think, the first time.
There will be clearer and greater emphasis on the local authority's parental responsibilities for children who are committed to its care by a court order. In particular, there will be a rationalisation of the 20 or more legal provisions by which a child can be committed to the care of a local authority.
There will be a new and simplified list of legal grounds on which a court order committing a child to local authority care can be made. The new grounds should cover cases where substantial harm is likely in the future as well as those where harm has already occurred. Local authorities should no longer be able to take parental rights over a child in their care without references to a court and we hope that changes to court procedure will be introduced to ensure a fairer and more expeditious means for the court to determine what is best for the child. Recent attention to issues in Cleveland and elsewhere mean that some of the provisions are even more important than they were when the White Paper was written.
We want to see a full involvement of parents in court proceedings and more involvement of relatives, friends and foster parents. We will be extending the court's present power to hear cases where access to a child in care is denied to cover cases where there is dispute over the reasonableness of the access that is granted.
Clear rights of appeal from decisions in magistrates courts will be introduced for local authorities and parents, in addition to the existing appeal rights for the child. We hope to recast the law governing private and voluntary

facilities for children, leading particularly to improved arrangements for facilities for under-fives and hopefully a more rational approach to facilities for older children.
Hon. Members will realise that that is a major piece of child care legislation and is a considerable reform. As presently drafted in its preliminary form, it already runs to over 100 clauses. It is therefore right and proper that it be introduced when sufficient time is allowed in the House for its discussions to proceed without hindrance. We look forward to doing that at the earliest opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent and the hon. Member for Peckham mentioned the importance of introducing some non-adversarial system for discussing family and child proceedings, and called for the formation of a family court. That matter was raised by the Select Committee on Social Services at the time I served on it and it has been repeatedly suggested from the 1970s. The matter is under discussion. As yet, I have no further progress to report.
To cover both education and training prior to qualification and post-qualifying training, there is a shared responsibility between the Government and the local authority employers. The Government spend £11·25 million annually in support of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, of which £7·5 million is grants for students and direct support of training. In 1987–88 we have made provision for an extra £10 million to be made available to social services departments for training. We estimate that local authorities spend some £20 million a year on internal and external training, which is not a small sum.
We can see that improvements are needed. Our acceptance of that obligation was clearly set out on 6 April 1987 in the letter from my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to Professor Saul, in which he said:
it is therefore clearly right that CCETSW should be examining these problems and considering what might be done to bring about improvements. I must say however, that the arguments for the proposals contained in Consultation Paper 20.6 do not provide a sufficiently clear or sound basis for the Government to give you a final decision.
Therefore, we have asked the CCETSW to do more.
We shall look carefully at the proposals that we expect this autumn from it.
I concur with the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham that training alone is not enough. We need to ensure that we recruit people of maturity and common sense. In my view, common sense is not a bad thing in any form of work. It is particularly valuable when dealing with the fine judgments that a social worker is called on to make. It is important that we motivate and support them and retain their skills later for the service of clients. There are considerable parallels here for the other caring services.
I have heard what was said about the profession's desire to regulate itself and the proposed general social work council. Our position is, broadly, that it is not in the first instance for the Government to act anyway. We shall listen carefully to arguments from the employers and the professions. We want a convincing case to be made that it is in the public interest that the profession should be regulated in any of the proposed ways. It is worth going into that aspect in a little more detail because it helps to illustrate some of the difficulties that face those who would turn the social work profession into some model which is based on one of the other professions and has the same difficulties.
There is renewed interest among professional social services associations in seeking support for a GSWC in some form, but the main role and functions of the regulatory body are not yet the subject of agreement between the associations. Indeed, there are large gaps between them. We have at all times shown a willingness to listen to the debate and we have encouraged greater agreement on the fundamentals. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health had a meeting with the British Association of Social Workers on 28 January this year when some of these issues were explored in depth.
The claim of social work to be a professional occupation rests in part on the existence and the transmission to practitioners of a set of values finding expression in an ethical code. Training courses leading to the certificate of qualification of social work normally give attention to social work values and ethics. But not all those practising as social workers, particularly in residential and day care settings, have had the opportunity for professional training.
BASW, which has about 10,000 members, adopted a code of ethics for its members in 1975. The Social Care Association, with 5,000 to 6,000 members, is consulting its members this year about the introduction of a code. Not all social workers, however, are members of those organisations. The way forward according to those bodies is through the establishment of a national regulatory council which they hope will protect the interests of personal social service consumers and maintain satisfactory standards of conduct and practice among all social services staff in contact with clients. Also envisaged is the incorporation of the functions of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work in the new council, which would include the promotion of training, the approval of courses of study and the awarding of certificates to successful students.
The Barclay committee report of 1982 provided a comprehensive review of arguments for and against the creation of a general social work council. Among the counter-arguments put to the committee were that such a council could be part of the creation of a self-protecting elite group of social workers, that the definition of social work is still unclear and accordingly that it is uncertain which staff would be eligible to be registered; and that as local government is the principal employer of social workers, its conditions of service provide sufficient means to regulate the conduct of social workers and other social services staff.
Such arguments, which came mainly from local authority associations and NALGO, reflect their stance in the current debate about a regulatory body. Local authorities have responsibility for the quality and standard of work done by their staff. Social service staff function as the agents of the local authority, not as independent practitioners.
The earlier lack of agreement expressed to the Barclay committee by professional associations persists. The Association of Directors of Social Services envisages that all people with a recognised social work qualification who are in practice should be eligible for registration. By

contrast, the SCA argues for a broader approach in which registration would be a requirement for all staff in personal social services—qualified or not—who hold positions of authority over clients. BASW's firm stance, which broadly accords with that of the ADSS, is subject to current review. NALGO has issued a statement of opposition. That is not a very strong basis of agreement on which the Government can support further moves.

Mr. Rowe: Whether a council is the right way forward is something that will be considered during the next few months. What worries me is that, in inter-professional discussions, there is a tendency for the old established professions, notably medicine, to assume a seniority and authority which is often unjustified. It is in the public interest to foster good practice which is found in several areas so that, when they earn it by expertise and experience, social workers are accorded the kind of professional seniority which, at the moment, too often goes by the board.

Mrs. Currie: I recognise the force of the feeling behind my hon. Friend's assertions, but I am sure that he agrees that we must aim to achieve teams that are genuinely multidisciplinary and teams that are genuinely teams. People should share all their skills to assist clients.
The current debate and the papers produced by professional associations have been brought formally to the attention of the CCETSW. I would be unhappy at entering endless negotiations about the status of social workers when we are more interested in the quality and standard of social work. I am keen to ensure that we do not lose sight of the client and his or her needs, or of the employer—usually the local authority—its statutory responsibilities, the taxpayer and the ratepayer.
There is considerable public ambivalence about social workers. I hope that this debate will play its part in helping to resolve the public's feelings about the role of social workers. We all feel some concern when we recognise that perhaps some over-zealous bureaucrat is meddling in people's lives. Yet we call them in to protect us from the difficult problems of the real world outside. We hand over to social workers the flotsam and jetsam of our society and then we criticise them for perhaps being too interested in those who have little opportunity to stand up for themselves. We criticise when social workers are too cautious or when they are over-eager. The British public persists in the belief that there is a formula for social work, whereas each case is different.
I think it was in the Barclay report that social workers were described as brokers in lesser evils. Perhaps that sums up exactly the role that they have to play. The Government value what is being done by social workers. We recognise that the work is important, difficult, stressful and frequently dangerous. We recognise that the work involves the exercise of considerable influence over people's lives, often with pressure and conflict. We want to ensure that, as far as possible, social workers are well equipped and supported in the work that they do. I put on record my appreciation of everything that they do and try to do.

Orders of the Day — Fire and Civil Defence Authorities

Mr. Ian McCartney: It gives me great pleasure at this hour, having sat all through the night giving moral support to hon. Members on both sides of the House in a number of interesting debates, to see the end of this marathon sitting ahead. I hope that at the end of the morning's celebrations I shall have been able to shine some chink of light on the matters that I wish to raise with the Under-Secretary.
It is no accident that I raise the issue of Government funding arrangements for fire and civil defence authorities as I am still a member of the Greater Manchester fire and civil defence authority. In the period between abolition and the setting up of the new authority I was a member of the transitional organisation. Since the setting up of the authority I have been the Labour party spokesperson and whip on the authority and as such have been involved in detailed discussions about the running of the authority, both in terms of its policy towards the development of the service and how that service is funded. Interlinked with that, there has been the role of civil defence obligations within the all-purpose authority.
I want to mention three items in the debate. The first item relates to the fire service and the delivery of service by fire fighters. The second item relates to capital allocations and expenditure limitations in the civil defence and the third item relates to the inclusion of fire authorities in the Local Government (No. 2) Bill in respect of the privatisation of certain aspects of the fire service. I do not want to go over all of the ground about the whys and wherefores of abolition.
Much of what I complain about stems from the hurried way in which the Government carried out that operation and failed to take into account the nature of the single purpose bodies they were setting up and the way in which those bodies, not only in the short term but in the long term, have to be funded in a way different from other local government organisations.
The fire and civil defence authorities are all subject to precept limitations under the Local Government Act 1985. This means that the Home Office prescribes the maximum expenditure level—MEL—for each joint authority. The grant entitlement is calculated by reference to grant-related expenditure and other calculators set by the Department of the Environment. The precept raises the difference between those two calculations and the entitlement that flows from the calculations is prescribed as a maximum by the Home Office.
The two target areas have been met by two separate Government Departments. The MELs set by the Home Office, which also provide establishment levels and establishment costs, average about 80 per cent. of the total expenditure. That is important in respect of that high level of investment in manpower when changes take place in expenditure levels and how critical that can be to the service in respect of maximum expenditure levels.
The grant-related expenditure assessment is calculated by the Department of the Environment on a hypothetical assessment of need to spend based on total population, density and fire calls. There is no consistent relationship between those two targets, and the statistics for 1987–88 show unsatisfactory, unexplained discrepancies. For example, the grant-related expenditure assessment as a

percentage of maximum expenditure limits for Merseyside is 97 per cent., for West Midlands it is 97 per cent. and it gradually goes down the scale. It is 85 per cent. for London, 84 per cent. for my authority in Greater Manchester, 83 per cent. for Tyne and Wear, 81 per cent. for South Yorkshire, and, at the bottom of the pile, is poor old West Yorkshire. The result of that discrepancy is the loss of block grant for spending at Home Office target levels with consequent increases in precept levels. This year the Merseyside precept is 6·3p in the pound. In West Yorkshire, an authority of a similar size and nature, the precept is 11·59p in the pound. Yet, there is no indication that the standard of fire cover in West Yorkshire is almost twice that on Merseyside. That is the result of the central financing systems. The fire authorities are working to common standards. They are controlled at establishment level by the Home Office and are subject to Her Majesty's inspectors audit. On the face of it there is no justification for the differences and the result is an imposed burden on precept payers in many metropolitan areas.
The absurdity is best demonstrated by the London fire and civil defence authority, which receives no block grant because GREA is so far below maximum expenditure levels. That arises because of totally erroneous assumptions by the Department of the Environment on financial resources available to the authority. I am genuinely hopeful that at the end of this debate the Minister will provide the House with a satisfactory explanation for that wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The effect on Greater Manchester fire and civil defence authority in the past 12 months has been serious. The Home Office set the maximum expenditure limit at £44,232,000. Albeit as a consequence of the Secretary of State for the Environment's indiscretions earlier this year, the redetermination process was suspended and the maximum expenditure limit was eventually converted into the precept level of 9·75p in the pound. However, if the Secretary of State, old Nick as he is commonly known, had got his way, he would have set GREA at £37,241,000. That is £7 million below the Home Office's own assessment of my authority's requirements simply to stand still in the current financial year. If that figure had been imposed on us we would have had drastic cuts in our budget in terms of manpower, ridership factors and in relation to our successful Whelephant operation, which is known throughout the United Kingdom and Europe as the most success attempt to teach children and others in the education process about fire and the prevention of fire. Therefore, an error of judgment by the Secretary of State has prevented us from being paid £7 million less this year than the figure set by the Home Office Minister.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has been considering the matter for the past 12 months and on 26 May its sub-committee met to discuss papers prepared by the Home Office and the Department of the Environment addressing the options about the discrepancies on GREA and the Home Office determined expenditure limits for all of the metropolitan fire authorities. The AMA felt that, despite the obvious delay in completing the fire risk areas exercise some one-off proposal should be made to the Home Office for 1988–89 which would
recognise the total expenditure resources required by individual authorities in order to meet their statutory functions and support their (Home Office) approved establishment levels;
minimise the differences in GREA's and ELs so that the precept levels within the metropolitan areas would be similar


and reflect the provision of a (largely) homogeneous service provided to nationally determined standards as monitored by Home Office inspectors.
The authority subsequently asked for information from constituent metropolitan fire authorities that would help them in negotiations with the Home Office. That exercise has highlighted major discrepancies between authorities with a commonality of interest. At this hour, I do not wish to tax the House or the Minister with a further list of statistics. Therefore, I recommend to the Minister the AMA report that was approved on 8 July 1987, a copy of which I understand has been sent to his office.
The views of the AMA have all-party support. I do not attempt to use the difficulties between the Home Office and the Department of the Environment for party political purposes. All of us who have worked for fire and civil defence authorities recognise that they are here to stay for a considerable time. Even if the Labour party wins the next general election, fire authorities will remain in place for a considerable time thereafter. Therefore, we are in the real job of trying to come to an accommodation with the Minister about appropriate funding for single purpose authorities. That was basically highlighted by the London fire and civil defence authority on 9 July, when an all-party resolution was approved, stating that the current methodology for GREA is unsuitable for assessing expenditure levels and that more regard must be paid to the standards of fire cover set out by the Home Office, a review of which is presently being undertaken not only by the London FCDA but by most metropolitan fire and civil defence authorities.
Two matters must be considered by the Minister. One is what we shall do in the short term, and the other is what we shall do in the long term. In the long term, we must examine a system that is based on the risk categorisation exercise from which all other factors such as needs and resources ultimately come. I have noted that the Home Secretary's working party discussion paper is examining some of the AMA options in developing GREA for 1988, 1989 and 1990, based on establishment levels, total calls, pensions and fire prevention work, but as yet no firm decisions have been forthcoming from the Department. Such delays have been unhelpful to fire and civil defence authorities who are desperately trying to plan without the obvious abilities of multi-purpose shire counties to support levels of expenditure by virement of GRE between service heads, or using contingencies and balances that are almost always available within larger budget heads such as those commonly available to shire counties.
Fire and civil defence authorities are not in the business of trying to rob Peter to pay Paul. There is no suggestion, nor would I support any proposal, to move funding from the shire brigades to assist metropolitan brigades. We require an interim agreement for 1988–89 on the recognition by all of us that a long-term formula must be agreed for 1988, 1989 and 1990. There must be some political discussion between the Home Office Ministers and those who are responsible for the day-to-day running of fire and civil defence authorities. The AMA has been asking for such a political level meeting since July 1986, and so far, for various reasons, such a meeting has not taken place. Time is now running out to agree a joint package that will meet the needs of the fire service and suit the ratepayer's pocket. At the end of the day, I shall look to the Minister to give an indication to the House when

he will meet fire and civil defence authorities via the AMA this summer. If he is not available, I shall ask the Minister of State to do so as soon as possible.
The Government, through their abolition proposals, created the single purpose authorities such as the FCDA's. They must ensure that they are adequately funded. One approach to consider in 1988–89 is that maximum expenditure should be calculated by reference to the original 1987–88 redetermination submissions, updated for inflation and other committed expenditure. I leave that for comment from the Minister.
I now turn to the problems of civil defence, in particular to the funding arrangements for the planned programme of implementation. Despite the original hostility between local authorities and the Government about attitudes to civil defence, there is now a common purpose about the way in which the Government should proceed about using funding arrangements for civil defence in terms of meeting emergency situations in local communities.
At a recent meeting which I attended at the Home Office, to report on what the Greater Manchester fire and civil defence authority was doing to implement the PPI, it became clear from the representatives of the F6 division of the Department that there was no common ground between those officials and the Department of Environment about the way in which 100 per cent. funding grants for emergency centres would be financed via the fire authorities and districts. We have the ludicrous position of the Minister's Department being prepared to provide fire and civil defence authorities and district councils with 100 per cent. funding to update emergency centres, yet the Department of the Environment, on the other hand, penalising authorities by including the calculation in the capital expenditure limits.
The Government cannot seriously expect metropolitan district authorities such as Wigan, which are having their capital expenditure limits squeezed to allow that kind of virement to take place at the expense of social services, housing and education. Because of that difficulty and the disagreement between the two Departments, which has still not been resolved, we have a position where neither ourselves nor the Minister's Department can move forward in any real sense with the refurbishment of emergency centres in metropolitan districts.
On 3 July, F6 wrote to the Greater Manchester fire and civil defence authority about this matter. I quote from the letter, which states:
We understand the difficulty authorities face with the capital costs of establishing emergency centres. The Home Office has raised the matter with the Department of the Environment and with the Treasury but the issue has been subsumed into a wider reconsideration of local authority finance. We will not be letting the matter lie but there is nothing further we can say at the moment. As promised, we are currently giving consideration to the question of the running costs of emergency centres.
That small paragraph is indicative of the whole attitude towards fire and civil defence authorities in all its guises. The Department of the Environment and the Home Office cannot get their act together, never mind agree with the fire and civil defence authorities.
I turn to privatisation and the incredible decision to include fire services within the scope of the Local Government (No. 2) Bill, I indicate to the Minister that the AMA and others of a responsible view will be looking for


an exclusion in the Bill, similar to that contained in the Bill for the police service vehicles. This should also apply to fire service vehicles.
In addition, it is important to place on record the problems associated with the maintenance of fire brigade vehicle workshops, because it is essential that the issue is not simply put aside in the Local Government (No. 2) Bill. We must ensure that fire appliances have 100 per cent. reliability, extending for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The public must have confidence in the fire brigade and that confidence can be ensured by having both the vehicles and the equipment on the vehicles fully operational in a first-class condition. I hope that, in all the circumstances, the Minister will state his intention to meet with the AMA as soon as possible to consider all the points raised in the debate this morning.

Mr. Clive Soley: I wish to begin this very brief intervention by saying what a pleasure it is to see you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the Chair.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) on his speech. He covered a technical area very competently. He was, perhaps, a little optimistic when he hoped for a chink of light. Even at this time of the morning, that is a bit much. However, when he then said that he hoped for a satisfactory explanation from the Minister, that really was raging optimism.
I served on the abolition Bill, which, as my hon. Friend recognised, is really where all this trouble started. If the Minister were to give my hon. Friend a satisfactory explanation, he would stand at the Dispatch Box and say that that Bill was a total and utter disaster, especially in relation to the fire and civil defence services. Lord Whitelaw's own words showed that the thought it a nonsense to set up a separate authority. The Home Office never wanted it, it never liked it, it thought that it was a contradiction in terms and it recognised that it would lead to major financial problems in the administration of the services. As my hon. Friend said, organisations such as the AMA recognised in advance of the Bill that it would be nothing but bad news for the fire and civil defence services.
The Minister has the opportunity—and I suggest that he takes it—to return to his Department and arrange meetings with the AMA at the level suggested by my hon. Friend, and to begin to talk realistically about the funding of such organisations. My hon. Friend was right to point out the need for a longer-term view of the arrangements for the fire and civil defence services. We do not doubt that we should be looking for proper local authority arrangements again rather than at this mismatch of centralised control, lack of sensible funding related to local needs and so on. My hon. Friend has provided the Minister with an opportunity to recognise past mistakes and to say that he is prepared to begin talks along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.
I think that the Minister, in his wisdom, recognises that this area went badly wrong under the abolition Bill. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Government's intentions on the wider aspects of abolition, this area has caused acute problems. If the Minister is not to duck the challenge from my hon. Friend, he should be bold enough—as I am sure he can be at times, as I have seen it in

the past—to recognise that there is a major problem to which he needs to respond along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): In common with other hon. Members, I welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Chair in your new capacity.
I congratulate the hon. Members for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) on raising a matter of considerable importance. Before I deal with the main points raised, with particular reference to the fire authority function, I wish to comment briefly on the civil defence aspect raised by the hon. Member for Makerfield.
The hon. Gentleman made the point that capital controls work in an eccentric way, and I well understand that. He will know that a review is taking place into the capital control—or capital expenditure—system. The points that he raised about civil defence capital grants will be considered in the context of that review.

Mr. McCartney: I understand that, but that does not alter the fact that the Department has been pressurising local authorities to put pressure on district authorities—irrespective of the review—to commit some of their capital expenditure to a refurbishment programme. The Minister has admitted that the current review is considering whether any expenditure in an authority at district level reflects on the total capital expenditure. The Minister cannot have it both ways. The Government have had 12 months to resolve the matter, and until they do so there is no chance of authorities finding moneys from the housing, education and social services budgets to meet the planned programme of implementation.

Mr. Hogg: I have not conceded anything. I said that the Government are reviewing local authority capital expenditure controls, and that in that context capital allocations for civil defence will be considered. That is a statement of fact, not a concession. I shall not go beyond that and I shall not anticipate the outcome of the review.
I shall deal with the broader questions that the hon. Gentleman raised, which concentrate largely on the mismatch between the GREs and expenditure limits. Before doing so I shall summarise in brief form the controls that exist for the fire and civil defence authorities. There are essentially two controls, those of manpower and finance. I propose to deal with manpower fairly rapidly, as it is not an issue on which the hon. Gentleman concentrated. He will appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department exercises a statutory control over the establishment, support services and management arrangements of the seven FCDAs. These controls will operate for the first three years of the existence of the seven FCDAs. That will mean that they come to an end in 1988–89.
The second and much the most important area of control is something that relates to financing. By section 68 of the Local Government Act 1985 the FCDAs were deemed to be subject to the rate limitation controls that were created by the Rates Act 1984. That operates for the first three years of their existence. Effectively, the authorities are treated as being rate-capped, and there is a maximum precept that they are authorised to levy on the constituent districts.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the fairly complex procedure that has to be followed to determine both expenditure levels and precept levels. I could explain the procedure to the House, though I question the merit of doing so at 12 minutes past seven in the morning, but I shall do so if the hon. Gentleman wishes.
I take up the issue that is worrying the hon. Gentleman, which is the mismatch between GREs and expenditure levels. There is a difference between the GREs and expenditure levels, and there is a difference between the functions of the two. Expenditure levels are set by the Home Secretary, and GREs by the Department of the Environment. They are intended to have different functions and purposes.
Grant-related expenditure is used as a yardstick for use in the distribution of block grant. Its assessments are a means of distributing block grant on an equitable basis. The GRE formula for the fire service was reached after consultations with local authority associations. It is based on common principles that are applicable to all authorities. The GRE of a fire and civil defence authority does not determine what an authority should spend, nor does it determine what it can spend. Grant-related expenditure is a yardstick for all fire authorities. It applies to all fire authorities, and is not confined to the FCDAs. The object of the GREs, imperfect though it may be, is to apply a common yardstick throughout the country for fire authorities.
The expenditure level is a different instrument, with a different purpose. It is part of the process by which the precept limit is set. It takes account of the particular circumstances of each fire and civil defence authority. It is hoped and intended that the expenditure level will ensure that adequate fire protection is provided for the public and fire crews. The expenditure limit determines what an authority can spend, apart from the amount allowed for contingencies that is taken into account when setting the precept limit. It is not possible for the authority to set its budget in excess of the determined expenditure limit.
However, to take a broad view, the function is different. There is a distinction between the GREAs and expenditure levels. They are not intended to achieve the same purpose and there is no particular reason why the two should be in total harmony. I appreciate that there arc problems that necessarily flow from mismatches—the hon. Member for Makerfield has described some of them—and it is for that reason that a review is taking place with regard to fire risk categorisation. That review is intended to bring the GREAs more into line with expenditure levels. It is desirable that GREAs should be more in line with expenditure levels, but there is no compelling reason why that should always be so.
To contrast the expenditure limit against GREA in order to determine the actual level of expenditure is not, in itself, a sensible thing to do. The functions of the two criteria are different. Although I appreciate that there is a need to bring the GREAs more into line with the expenditure levels—a review is being undertaken to that effect—it is not essential that that should happen. The hon. Member for Makerfield will be aware that we have not had a full response to the fire risk categorisation review. Only a minority of the authorities have replied on the question of fire risk categorisation. Therefore, it is not yet possible to say when the review will be complete. I hope

that that review will be completed in the foreseeable future. Certainly I should like to see a greater matching between GREAs and expenditure levels.
The hon. Member for Makerfield suggested that a meeting should be convened between the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and Ministers at the Home Office. It is fair to say that the letter addressed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was received in his office on 10 July. I am not in a position to commit my right hon. Friend or indeed my noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who has direct responsibilities for the fire service to such a meeting. I am sure, however, that at an appropriate time Ministers would be extremely pleased to meet the AMA to discuss the problems that the hon. Member for Makerfield outlined.

Mr. Soley: Does the Minister accept, perhaps at this time in the morning with a spirit of generosity, that if Lord Whitelaw's advice had been accepted the fire and civil defence authorities would not be in their present difficulties? In those circumstances, will the Minister convey to the Home Secretary, the importance of meeting the AMA as a matter of urgency and recognising that the problems that it faces have been put upon it largely as a result of the Government's legislation on abolition.

Mr. Hogg: I shall not make any concession along those lines. The hon. Gentleman is well able to make his own points. He has done so, and those who read Hansard will understand them. The hon. Gentleman must not be the least bit surprised if I say that, much as I should like to agree with him—I spend much of my time agreeing with him—on this issue I shall not make the concession that he wants me to make.

Mr. McCartney: The Minister has already given the game away—the Department is already conducting a review. That review is needed because the figures do not add up. The discrepancies have been growing. I find it absolutely amazing, even at this time in the morning, that the Minister can, in the space of 10 minutes, suggest that there is no good reason why there should be any correlation between the two calculations, but then admits that there is a working party endeavouring to bring about that correlation.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman was either not listening, or he did not understand. The plain fact is that he does not comprehend what is going on.
It is desirable that there should be as much of a match as possible between GREAs and expenditure, as I have said, but, as I have also said, it is not essential, because the functions of the two are different. However, it is desirable, which is why we are having a review to ensure greater consistency between GREAs and expenditure levels. I do not contemplate that they will be the same. That is certainly not an essential requirement, nor is it necessarily an essential part of the review. However, as I have said, greater consistency between the two is desirable and, when more of the authorities have replied, we shall be in a better position to assess whether we will be able to achieve that desirable result.
As I was saying before that pleasing intervention from the hon. Member for Hammersmith, who I gather wants to get away rather urgently so I shall wind up the debate promptly because I never wish to be discourteous to him——

Mr. Soley: I cannot stand the idea of the Minister going through all these verbal gymnastics at this time of the day. He will do himself an injury, if he has not done so already. Yes, I am leaving shortly, to tell the police at a local college about how bad the Government are on law and order. However, let us leave that discussion until a little later this morning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield has a fair point and all that the Minister is struggling with—I understand why and accept that it is not his fault—is the fact that the Government got themselves into a mess between the requirements of the Department of the Environment and those of the Home Office on the abolition Bill. Lord Whitelaw recognised that openly and honestly, and it was frequently referred to during the passage of the abolition Bill. If the Home Office would now say, "Yes, we recognise that that abolition process created acute problems, especially in areas such as fire and civil defence", and would go to meet the bodies to which my hon. Friend referred, especially the AMA, on that basis, the Minister would be impressed by the willingness to co-operate to try to make what has become a mess work much better. The Minister must have an interest in that. Indeed, his verbal gymnastics clearly displayed that he knows that it is a mess. Let us get on and sort it out.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman said that he was going to talk to the police about how bad the Government's policies on law and order are. I advise him not, in any way, to try to impress the police with the desirability of his party's policies on law and order, because the police would all fall out of their seats laughing. [Interruption.] In fact, the hon. Gentleman knows that and is smiling now. Indeed, he must be embarrassed by the prospect of presenting to the Metropolitan constabulary the policies of the Labour party on law and order because the police would hoot with laughter. However, that is by the way, and we shall let the hon. Gentleman off on that matter.
As for the hon. Gentleman's references to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Whitelaw, the hon. Gentleman has already made that point and I have already told him as

clearly as I can that I shall not make the concession for which he has asked. I am just not going to do it. Although repetition from the hon. Gentleman is humorous, and no doubt enchanting, it will not get him anywhere at all. I was merely trying to conclude my speech to allow the hon. Gentleman to go off to Hendon, which is what he wants to do.
The essential question is whether fire cover in the joint authority areas that we have been discussing is adequate or inadequate. All the other gymnastics that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and through which we have been going, are interesting and relevant to that question, but they are not the principal issue. In such cases, the principal issue is always whether the service is adequate or inadequate. Incidentally, I was deeply disappointed not to hear from the hon. Member for Makerfield any analysis of that, because surely it is the major issue. All that stuff about GREAs and expenditure levels is splendid, but it does not go to the main issue, which is simply that the fire cover in the relevant areas is adequate.

Mr. McCartney: I do not want to prolong this issue because other hon. Members wish to speak. However we need no lessons from the Minister about adequate fire cover, when the Department of the Environment wants to take £7 million off this year's budget, a budget that was set by the Minister's own Department.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman improves his case not a bit. The question, as he knows well, is whether the fire cover provided in these areas is adequate. Even in his area of Greater Manchester the proposal for financing represents a 7·5 per cent. increase on 1986–87, which seems to be a significant increase. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has not thought for one moment to suggest that the fire cover is inadequate. As I feel sure that the Opposition parties are willing to take every point, whether bad, indifferent or perhaps good, that can be taken against the Government, the fact that they fail to suggest that the fire cover is inadequate makes my point in a singularly compelling way.

Orders of the Day — Economic Performance (North-West Region)

Mr. Alistair Burt: I thank the House for finding time for me to raise this important topic. It is particularly pleasant to do so under your benevolent eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, bearing in mind how much you know about our area.
The north-west is generally reckoned to stretch from Crewe to Carlisle, and whether it includes Cumberland and the Lake District depends on the statistics being used. The heart of the area is certainly Lancashire, Cheshire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester. It is the United Kingdom's most densely populated area. My constituency and the metropolitan borough of Bury is right at the heart of the north-west.
I am not unique in the House in having been born and brought up in the constituency that I represent—I am aware that there are others—but it gives me a special feel for the area. For that reason I speak for the area not as an outside, objective observer, but as someone who has the heart of the area close to his own heart.
The area is representative of the country as a whole as such it typifies both the optimism and pessimism that the Government face since their election. If Opposition parties seek to use the north-west as an example of what they term divided Britain, I fear they will be genuinely disappointed. At the general election, 34 Conservative Members, 36 Labour Members and three Liberal Members were returned, so it cannot be classed in any way as a Labour party stronghold. Indeed, one reason why we still sit on the Government Benches and the Labour party is on the Opposition Benches is the Opposition's failure to capture seats that they needed to win in the north-west and their rejection by voters in the north-west.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: It is curious that the hon. Gentleman should follow that train of thought. Can he explain why the Labour party now has more seats than the Conservative party in the north-west?

Mr. Burt: I did not seek to suggest that we had more. The Opposition sometimes suggest that the north-west is a great red area, and that is simply not true. The Labour party recovered marginally from being in the minority. In the last Parliament there were more Conservative Members than Labour Members representing the area and the Labour party's recovery, in the context of the Conservative majority of over 100, is rather marginal. The Labour party expected to do far better in the north-west, but it failed to do so. That is why we are still sitting here.
If a foreign visitor were to come to some parts of the north-west, he or she would shake his or her head at the extraordinary claims of abject poverty and deprivation that he or she might have heard during the election from the Opposition parties. However, if the foreign visitor came to other parts of the north-west, he or she would shake his or her head ruefully and wonder what this talk of prosperity was all about. The region, therefore, like the country at large, has plenty of areas of prosperity but also areas of considerable concern.
In the north-west we tend to suffer from over-concentration on the affairs of our two great cities, Liverpool and Manchester. We have inner-city problems,

but I welcome the Government's recent initiatives, such as the Trafford park urban development corporation, the development of Liverpool and particularly the success of the Albert dock. I am glad to see that the Government are tackling inner-city problems in the north-west.
It should never be forgotten that there is a great deal to the north-west outside these particular urban areas. That is sometimes forgotten and glossed over by the outside world. It is remarkable that our foreign visitor, who now sees areas of prosperity and deprivation close together, could have made comments on this disparity at almost any time during the past 300 years. Relative poverty and prosperity side by side are nothing new and it is nonsense to suggest that the phenomenon has arisen since 1979. We should get that one out of the way straight away. However, the problems posed by disparities of wealth now affect our generation, our constituents and the north-west. Therefore, the economic performance of the north-west, coupled with its determination to succeed, is the way forward for us all.
Even in the House, it is sometimes necessary to restate the obvious. That is doubly so in the case of the north-west due to the remarkable lack of knowledge of the area in some places where considerable investment decisions are made. I hope that it will be helpful to the House to consider a little of the north-west's economic history and show how the base of its economy has changed.
Traditionally, of course, the area has been dominated by heavy manufacturing industry—textiles, mining, engineering and paper. There was a concentration of textiles, engineering and paper in my constituency. Those traditional manufacturing industries have been in a long-term decline which certainly predates 1979. Indeed, the textile industry has been in difficulties since the turn of the century.
The reasons for the decline in manufacturing industry in the north-west are not hard to find, and they are almost standard for the rest of the country. They include a decline in markets, poor investment decisions, sometimes poor labour relations, the end of empire and the growth of overseas countries providing more and more of their own manufactured goods. All those factors have affected industry, and employment has declined constantly.
However, that is the old north-west. People sometimes forget that the land that gave birth to Arkwright, Kay, Hargreaves and Crompton is the same land that gave birth to the chemicals at ICI, to the development of Unilever and the development of the world's greatest glass-making company, Pilkington. The new was beginning to replace the old.
The other day I listened to an extract from one of Winston Churchill's famous wartime speeches about: fighting on the beaches. In that speech he was referring to the new world at some stage needing to come to the assistance of the old. The analogy with industry is simple. New industries in the north-west are coming to the aid of those who used to be employed in the old industries. The pattern of employment in the north-west is changing.
Unfortunately, a generation of film and television producers of the 1950s and 1960s has perpetuated the myths of the north-west. While we all enjoy "Coronation Street," and no one would wish to see it disappear from our screens, sadly, down south it fuels an image of the north that can sometimes be dangerous.

Mr. Tony Favell: My hon. Friend is portraying the north-west painting a proper picture of itself and so encouranging investment and people, but would he dwell on the picture that the Oppostion paint of the north-west, as a down-at-heel part of the country which is dirty and full of unemployed people when that picture is not true in many parts of the north-west? For example, Stockport, which is an industrial town, now has unemployment of 8·8 per cent.

Mr. Burt: Of course, my hon. Friend is correct. One of the problems faced by the north-west in recent years is the difficult balance between portraying its good side and its bad. It would be wrong to ignore the problems in the north-west. However, laying over-emphasis on those problems paints a rather unfair picture. The balance must be right. Sometimes, for political reasons, Opposition Members overlay the problems, and that is no way forward for the north.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: This point is fundamental to the whole debate about the north-west. In our great cities, the traditional centres, there are pockets of such desperation and economic devastation, which the hon. Gentleman must accept has occurred particularly over the past few years. If he does not begin to approach questions, such as what is to be done with the inner cities, he is ignoring the basic problem of the north-west. What is to be done in those inner-city areas?

Mr. Burt: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads what I said at the beginning of my speech more carefully. I do not dissent from his comments. However, to concentrate solely on the problems of the inner cities in the north-west is to distort the picture of the north-west completely. I fear that concentration on those problems by Opposition Members and the ignoring of the rest of the development of the north-west gives the wrong picture of the area to those who have the power to make investment decisions.
We are not an area of the begging bowl. There is a lot going for the north-west, and it is wrong to approach the people who can provide jobs with a begging-bowl mentality. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), I shall return to that theme later, because it is important, but I certainly do not try to ignore the problems of the north-west. As the House should know, I have been open-minded and outspoken about them in the past.
If the base of the north-west economy is examined, a familiar pattern emerges, as in the rest of the country. Like all manufacturing countries, we have seen a decline in the number of pople employed in manufacturing industry and a consequent increase in the number employed elsewhere. The regional trends publication shows that in 1979 41·2 per cent. of people in the north-west were employed in what might be called traditional manufacturing industries and in construction, compared with 55·7 per cent. Of the population employed in what might relatively be called the service sector. By 1986, those figures had changed, 33·3 per cent. being employed in traditional manufacturing and construction and 63·9 per cent. in what might loosely be termed service industries. Interestingly enough, if those figures are compared even with those for 1985, they reveal an increase in the percentage employed in manufacturing.
The central point is still the same. We have seen the figures for alternative industries in the north-west grow,

and we know that the area's industrial and economic base is changing. I shall point to two or three examples in which that is most noticeable.
The old, surviving manufacturing industries are surviving because they have adapted to change. They make better products, and market them better. They are looking hard at where the products should go, and they have the right image. Two publications show the changing nature of two of our traditional industries. The British paper industry has made major strides since the catastrophes of the early 1980s. It now presents itself in a much better way, and its export and productivity statistics are remarkable. Similarly, the textile industry has moved away from the old-fashioned idea of textiles. Now it is again a major sector, contributing to the British economy and to exports, and it has done a good deal to improve its image and activity.
It should also not be ignored that traditional manufacturing industry is surviving because of new techniques. It is easily forgotten that new technology is useful in old manufacturing industries. We sometimes seem to imagine that there is a new-tech industry, located somewhere around Reading or Maidenhead, in which thousands of people are employed making computers. But we forget that high-tech then comes into traditional manufacturing industry and keeps it going. We must remember that the old skilled industries now have a balance between the old and the new skills. That is why some of them have survived and prospered throughout a very difficult period.
As well as the old traditional industries, we have the growth of new industries in our area. The north-west is singularly blessed with such industries, which will provide employment for many years to come. There is aerospace and the nuclear industry. Again, it should not be forgotten, when attacks on the nuclear industry are made from the Opposition Benches, that that industry in all its forms employs many thousands of people in the northwest, and will continue to do so. We have the telecommunications industry, the pharmaceutical industry and the computer industry itself, and there has also been a substantial growth in self-employment. The enterprise centre in my constituency has been working for five years. Each year, about 325 firms have commenced business, employing 400 people per year. Those new firms have a success rate of about 50 per cent. There has been a cheering growth in self-employment throughout the region, as well as in my constituency.
There has also been an encouraging growth in small business. In 1984, the Conservative authority in Bury opened a small business unit with centralised services. Various firms could come along and grow at their own pace and in their own time. It started with six firms. All 74 units in that building have now been filled. I pay tribute to the hard work of those in the centre who have created that growth. The traditional industries have survived and there are new industries.
There has also been growth outside the manufacturing sector and an increase in employment in the service sector. There has also been an increase in tourism. The North-West tourist board maintains that the north-west has a great deal to offer. According to the statistics, that is true. The latest figures show that 150,000 people in the northwest are employed in jobs connected with tourism. Between 1984 and 1989 the number of jobs in that sector is expected to grow by 25,000. Total spending on tourism


in the north-west each year is £580 million; £1·5 million a day is spent on tourism. Furthermore, £150 million comes from overseas. That is a great new development in the north-west.
In the next fortnight a steam railway will be opened in my constituency. It will run from Bury to Ramsbottom, which is in the north of my constituency. Ramsbottom is developing a small but effective tourist industry. Places that people never thought of as tourist spots have become popular. I note the presence of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). The so-called music hall joke, "Wigan pier", attractively presented by very good people with very good investment, has become a major tourist spot. I do not know anybody who has returned disappointed from a visit to Wigan pier. We have much to learn from that development. Ramsbottom should be similarly developed. It has connections with Dickens, and it will have one of the finest and longest steam railways in the country.

Mr. Favell: Is my hon. Friend referring to our hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens)?

Mr. Burt: I do not know whether it is possible to develop my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) as a tourist attraction. I am sure that many people would like to visit him. He is freely available here on many days of the week. That is why the Strangers Gallery is packed.
I thank the Government for providing, through the Department of the Environment, a £300,000 grant to develop that steam railway in the north of my constituency.
A number of factors underpin all these economic changes. One of them is communications. Manchester airport is a major source for the development of the region as a whole. During the past decade its growth has been phenomenal. In 1981 Manchester airport carried 4·7 million passengers. In 1987 it will carry 8·75 million passengers, and by 1995 that figure will rise to 16·1 million. More and more routes are being developed. All hon. Members pay tribute to the work of Mr. Gil Thompson, the managing director of Manchester airport, and to the work of the authority that helped to run the airport for many years. Manchester airport has a key role to play in the development of the north-west.
There are also many fine motorway links. One cannot move in the north-west without coming across a new motorway. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) found that out a few years ago when a new motorway was constructed almost on his doorstep. The north-west is blessed with a fabulous motorway infrastructure. We also have the 19th century legacy of the railways. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the rail link between the centre of Manchester and Manchester airport should be constructed as soon as possible. We have noted with concern the development of Stansted and Government assistance to provide a rail link. We hope that the time will soon come when a rail link is built between Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester airport.
Another major factor that underpins the change in the north-west is education. We have first-rate educational facilities, in particular higher education facilities, in the north-west. It contains the universities of Manchester, Liverpool, Manchester and Salford. There is also the University of Manchester Institute of Science and

Technology. There is the Manchester Business School and the Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Stockport polytechnics, all of which perform to very high standards. Both independent and state education are first rate. The north-west's education provision will be of great benefit to the area for years to come.
As for the changing pattern of our economy, I have dealt with the old image of the area. The major problem is employment, and it will continue to be a problem for some time. It would be foolish to ignore the loss of jobs in the area. We have seen employee numbers fall from about 2,670,000 in 1979 to 2,260,000 in 1986, but it is interesting to note the changes in pattern over the past few years. Between 1979 and 1983, including self-employment, the figures for people who were in work declined from 2,870,000 to 2,526,000. But if one looks at the figures between 1983 and 1986, one finds a net increase in employment from 2,526,000 to 2,530,000. That has been achieved through the growth of the service and self-employment sectors.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: This is stupid nonsense, even by the hon. Gentleman's standards. To talk about a 4,000 increase in employment over the period is a joke. The reality is that the numbers of the self-employed and builders in the north-west, according to the Government's statistics, have declined in real terms. In 1976 14 per cent. of the work force in the north-west was self-employed. In 1986 the figure was 15 per cent. The growth of the job-creating service sector, about which the Government boast, is false. In the north-west we have experienced a loss in jobs. Self-employment and service jobs have declined.

Mr. Burt: Once again our concern over the dismal picture that is being painted by the Labour party about the north-west has been justified by the words of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). If I had been one of the 4,000 who had got a job between 1983 and 1986 I would have been pleased. The hon. Gentleman missed the point that I was making. I was referring to a considerable drop in employment in our area between 1979 and 1983, which continued an historic pattern, but I was showing that between 1983 and 1986 not only did that fall in employment stop, but it was reversed. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for the past year he will find that that historic trend has been further reversed, and more people are coming into employment.
No Conservative Member who represents the northwest tries to gloss over the problems. We know that there has been a lot of unemployment, but I am talking about recent changes and the way forward. On that the statistics are clear. I do not know about the hon. Gentleman's statistics on self-employment, but mine show that in 1976 209,000 people were self-employed in our area, but by 1986 that figure had increased to 276,000. Those are considerable increases, whatever the hon. Gentleman thinks. The pattern of the economy shows a welcome increase in the past few years with regard to employment with a change in the historic pattern of employment ebbing away.
The vacancy statistics are encouraging. They show that vacancies increased by a third in one year. Our local newspapers are full of new jobs. However, there is the problem of skill shortages. I shall quote from the latest CBI survey on the problem of vacancies and skill shortages. With regard to the north-west, it says:


The number of vacancies is increasing and overall unemployment is now falling. However, redundancies are still occurring in manufacturing sectors, although not on the scale experienced in the past. Employment prospects are best in the non-manufacturing sectors.
Although skill shortages continue to be reported, they are not on a large scale. The main shortages are of skilled operatives, of plant and project engineers and in computer-related activities.
We are starting to get to grips with the problems of skill shortages, and that is largely due to the measures that the Government have taken to assist in training.
I should like to pay tribute to the good work that is being done by jobcentre teams throughout the north-west, particularly in my constituency, which work extremely hard and have a good record for finding people jobs.
That deals with employment, but I should like to consider the overall picture as seen by the CBI in the Greater Manchester area and regionally. Regionally, the CBI reports:
Overall business is good, and the improved situation is expected to be sustained … Recent reports from … the Manchester and Merseyside Chambers of Commerce indicate that there was a steady overall improvement in the performance in the North West region at the end of 1986 and in the first quarter of 1987. There is now a more optimistic view of the industrial and commercial trends and the region's investment performance is improving in both quantity and quality.
Those words come not from Government sources but from sources outside the Government. They reflect the picture which I have put forward of the changes taking place in the north-west.
There have been individual success stories all around the north-west in recent years. Just a few years ago, Vickers wondered where its next frigate would come from and worried about labour relations with Cammell Laird at Birkenhead. The back-to-work committee from Birkenhead lobbied north-west Conservative Members here, seeking support for their company because they could not find it elsewhere. They found their works blockaded by strikers and pickets. They were desperate to show that they needed their jobs and could return to work. They knew that if there were not good industrial relations at Birkenhead, the company would die. They pleaded with us about their future. We took their pleas to the Minister. Eventually, Birkenhead won the order for a type 22 frigate because it was known that the workers were determined to remove the bully boys from their midst and produce a good future. Vickers' success was mirrored in Barrow's privatisation. Vickers has become a success story for the north-west and for the Government.
Mirroring what happened with Vickers, there are examples all around the north-west of manufacturing and service jobs being created. The Manpower Services Commission's publication on trends has a section on company expansion and development. The 1987 winter edition refers to a number of those developments and jobs. Isolated success is no longer the story of the north-west. There is continuing success in many sectors.
I should like to put my comments in a nutshell. The truth about the north-west is not as the Opposition have often presented it. It is not all doom and gloom. We know that the area has problems, but there are also many patches of success. The task for all of us is to ensure that

those patches of success spread, especially to deprived areas and other areas that need assistance. I am pleased by the Government's commitment to the inner cities.
I have had my battles with the Government on employment. I remember a speech which I made in the House, which was subsequently translated into an article for the Tory Reform Group. I resile not one whit from it because I was concerned then about the Government's emphasis on employment and the fact, that they were not getting the messages from the grass roots. I am now less concerned. The Government have listened to some of the arguments and there have been some changes. I know that they do not ignore the pain and problems caused by unemployment in the region.
I hope that I have made it clear that the north-west is now an area for the development of new and old industries. I hope that I have made clear the importance and influence of new technology in the old industries, of tourism and of growth in the service sector. Lastly, and most important, I hope that I have made clear the need for the north-west positively to put forward its own image. We do not have a begging-bowl mentality. We know that our region has many positive advantages. We appreciate the fact that people, whether from the City or from overseas, invest not through sentiment but for hardheaded reasons. In the north-west, we can provide them with an area where land prices are cheaper, so that they can build and develop their companies on green field sites more cheaply than in the south. We offer them a place where rates are cheaper and where the new community charge will benefit them. We offer them an area where homes are cheaper for their employees and their families. We offer them an area where there is less congestion and where their employees will be happier. We offer them an area where quality of life is second to none and where the costs to their companies are low. We offer them hard-working people committed to a brighter future. We offer them a fine infrastructure and great educational opportunities for their children. We offer them a new north-west.
My message to investors is not to be put off by the stories of inner-city areas but to come with us to the areas of growth and development in the north-west and, above all, to get in quickly, because the north-west is expanding. It is bringing in new people. There will be a great future. If the companies miss their chance now, they may never get a chance to come back to the fastest-growing and best part of the north-west. If they want opportunities for development they can contact me at the House of Commons. They want to locate in my constituency of Bury, North and the metropolitan borough of Bury. I know that and you know that, Mr. Speaker, and it is about time that those investors in the City knew it as well.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: It is almost a tragedy to hear what amounts to a form of economic assassination by Conservative Members who want to ignore the plight of our area. My constituency is still home to the largest concentration of industry in the north-west. I am the first to admit that many firms are still successful, for even in the middle of a Government-induced recession, there is still employment in the depths of despair.
The fact remains, however, that our manufacturing base is in a difficult condition. When the Government produced figures for the EC recently, they predicted a rise in unemployment in the area to 1990. They also said that


the problems of ageing infrastructure in the north-west outstripped the available resources and that there was therefore a danger that the infrastructure would continue to worsen.
The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) talked about Vickers. I found it amazing that he should boast about its success because it was the result of public spending. When public spending is the vehicle of recovery, there is some opportunity for social and economic progress. Many of our industries rely on the public sector, and manufacturing is still the driving force in the local economy.
The Government, however, have withdrawn money from the electricity supply industry, British rail and the nationalised sector with the result that jobs have gone every week. That being so, I find it difficult to accept the Conservative view of recovery in the north-west. The Central Electricity Generating Board, for example, has not built one new power station during the Government's tenure of office with the result that jobs and skills have been stripped from my community.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman is persisting in describing the north-west as a predominantly manufacturing area built on the public sector. That is no longer true. Does he agree that, in common with manufacturing areas all over the world, there has been a decline in the number of jobs in manufacturing and a consequent rise in other sectors? The hon. Gentleman must concede that there are more jobs in areas other than manufacturing and that the number of new jobs in those industries is growing. The new north-west is composed of traditional manufacturing industry and the new industries of which I spoke. If the hon. Gentleman persists in saying that there is only a hard core of industrial areas dependent on the public sector, he is not painting a true picture of the north-west as a whole. The hon. Gentleman should remember that he in his area is not the only hon. Member who represents the northwest. If he takes a wider view, he will see how wrong he is.

Mr. Lloyd: None of my colleagues has suggested that the north-west is an exlusively manufacturing area. In 1979, fewer than 1 million of its 2·5 million jobs were in manufacturing. Many of the non-manufacturing jobs relied on manufacturing, however, which is why we have lost nearly 500,000 jobs, some 330,000 of which were in manufacturing. That is a colossal decline, but the tragedy is that those jobs did not have to go. Some went as a result of the workings of the public sector cycle, others went because of the Government's incompetent policies. They almost waged war on manufacturing between 1979 and 1981. Since then, by incompetence, the Government have kept interest rates sky high. Conservative members have spoken of rate increases. We hear much about that. If any Conservative Member wants to talk to people in manufacturing industry and in the service sector about what the costs are in their own industries, they will find that high interest rates are the predominant factor talked about. That is a direct responsibility of the Government.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman said that the Government have declared war on manufacturing industry in the north-west. I have never heard such nonsense. Was it not the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers that shut down the engineering

industry in not only the north-west, but in the whole of the country for three months in 1979? Was that not declaring war on the industry?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman suffers from a type of myopia when it comes to the reality of his Government. There have been 330,000 jobs lost forever in the north-west in manufacturing. That was nothing to do with the AEU or with the trade union movement, but everything to do with the Government Front Bench and the sycophantic Back Benchers who are not prepared to fight for industry in the north-west. A figure recently produced by the City of Manchester—although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will dismiss it because it comes from a source of which he does not approve—shows that venture capital flows into the south-east at 3·5 times the rate it flows into the north-west. That is not because we do not have the skills or the competence but because of the bias of the City of London and the incompetence of the management of capital interests in a region such as ours.
The hon. Member for Bury, North talked about the begging bowl. I have no begging bowl to hand out. My colleagues and I have talked to industrialists and people such as Lord Weinstock, who is still a leading light in the biggest private company, who told us that he would not invest in the north-west because many of the jobs that his company was now investing in were work for women, and that women in the north-west did not have the nimble fingers necessary for such work.

Mr. Thurnham: It is nonsense.

Mr. Lloyd: It is absolute nonsense for the noble Lord to talk in those terms. It demonstrates the incompetence we have in this country, and that is a real part of the problem.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman has related statistics about investment going into other areas of the United Kingdom. What do his colleagues and he intend to do to present a positive image of all the north-west to encourage those investors to come to our area, because simply relating statistics of manufacturing decline and the problems in certain areas is, as I indicated in my speech, not enough. We have much going for us in a positive way in the north-west, about which I have heard little. I have heard nothing from the hon. Gentleman to convince me that he has changed his mind. When will he see that, unless we put forward the best image of the north-west, not glossing over the problems but examining why on a hardheaded, practical basis investors should come to our area we shall never achieve anything.

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman is patient I will develop the many things that we can do. There are many things that we ought to do in the north-west. I welcome the injection of money that is coming in through the urban development corporation in Trafford Park, not because I necessarily think that is the right vehicle and the right mechanism for those things to be done, because I do not think that is the case. The money that is finally being put in by the Government has long been sought by those interested in the north-west. At last we have a response from the Government because they recognise the irrelevance of their policies over the past seven or eight years. It was necessary for us to say that, without sizeable public expenditure in those areas, we would not begin to resolve those problems. When we have a Government who


talk about the inner cities, that is pumping no real money into those areas and that is channeling no money in any targeted way or in any meaningful sense, we have a Government who want the cosmetics of the inner cities but that want nothing to do with the large-scale social and economic problems of those areas. Headlines in local newspapers referred to a recent initiative in my area that saved £100,000 to be pumped into two local government wards in my constituency. In those two wards there are 20,000 people who are to receive that massive cash investment of £100,000, which is £5 per head of population. Conservative Members may think that £5 per head is a huge success for the Government. It actually represents £10 per head for each unemployed person in those two wards. That is the level of investment received from the private sector.

Mr. Favell: The hon. Gentleman has been saying a great deal about what the people of Brighton, Bournemouth, Bristol and London should be doing for Manchester. What is Manchester going to do for itself? May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the greatness of Manchester was built on the backs of Mancunians and the greatness of Liverpool was built on the backs of Liverpudlians and not on the backs of Brighton, Bristol and Basingstoke? It is nonsense to suggest that there should be more public sector spending in Manchester. Statistics show that Manchester council already spends more per head of population than any other city in the country. Manchester should start setting out its stall and getting back the sort of image that it used to have, which is hard-headed business-like devotion to making brass instead of bleating that the south owes it a living.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) is a relative newcomer to the north-west and does not fully understand what goes on there. For example, the one thing that Conservative Members always parade as a triumph of north-west ingenuity is Manchester airport. That has been run, virtually since its inception, by the local authority. It is the fastest growing enterprise in the area and it has been run by the public sector, by municipal Socialism. Conservative Members find that difficult to accept. We hear the occasional accolade from the more sensible Conservative Members who accept that the local authority, when given a chance to do such things, does them very well.
The reality is—Conservative Members cannot shirk this—that when we see the withdrawal of what amounts to £1 million per week from just one local authority, which happens to be one of the bigger local authorities in the north-west, inevitably we see a massive withdrawal of purchasing power from the local economy and we see a downward cycle created that affects service industry, manufacturing industry and so on.
Manchester, indeed the whole community in the northwest, wants the ability to spend its own money and create it own jobs. That is right and proper. We want the institutions. For example, we want the institutions that have been given to Scotland and funded by the Government. We want a development agency. Scotland, quite legitimately, has the Scottish Development Agency. I do not begrudge Scotland that for one second. However, the Government look at the north-west as a mere colony and are not prepared to let it have such facilities. When

local authorities such as Manchester and Liverpool make decisions about economic development the Government say that they will truncate that development and prevent the local authorities developing enterprise in their own areas. They do that, ironically, at the expense of the private sector that Conservative Members claim that they support and want to help.
In economies such as ours the private sector depends on the public sector because there is an inter-relationship. The idea that the private and public sectors operate as wholly independent sectors is not only nonsense, but is completely irrelevant to the sort of economy that we operate.
The largest private sector company in Britain, GEC, still has a significant involvement in the public sector whether through the railway system, the CEGB, the arms trade or whatever. We heard the row not so long about GEC when the discussion was raging as to whether we had bought from GEC in this country or whether we had bought American technology. Once again, the public sector determined whether the private sector would make a profit. That is the reality of the modern economy. We want a relationship between the public and private sector where they work together.

Mr. Favell: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the problem. The problem in the north-west is that there are Socialist controlled areas, that believe that the private sector depends on the public sector. In fact, the reverse is true. The public sector depends on the private sector. It depends on the enterprise of private individuals and of private companies, of people who go out and make the money on which the public sector depends. A town's prosperity does not grow out of the town hall. The town hall exists on the back of the prosperity of a town or city and once places such as Manchester and Liverpool, the great Socialist citadels of the north realise that, they will re-install the sort of prosperity from which those towns and cities grew. The prosperity of Liverpool and Manchester come not out of the town halls but out of individual private enterprise. The sooner those cities realise that, the sooner they will get back to where they should be.

Mr. Lloyd: The reality of the north-west is slightly different. Once again, the hon. Gentleman demonstrated his ignorance.
The city of Manchester, certainly on its southern edge, relied on Trafford park for its employment. That was the manufacturing base. Trafford park, as the hon. Gentleman probably does not realise, is in the borough of Trafford. Historically, the borough of Trafford was a Conservative-controlled, low rating authority. The borough of Trafford underwent a job shedding, the like of which was never seen in any other parts of greater Manchester, not because of the high rating city of Manchester or the low rating borough of Trafford, but simply the damage that was done to the manufacturing sector. I have seen horrendous levels of unemployment in my part of the city of Manchester and in my part of Trafford. The idea that the hon. Gentleman somehow has the mechanism of private sector development ready to set up market stalls in old Trafford and McDonalds takeaways in Moss Side is a nonsense. Business is starting in Moss Side and Trafford. We welcome that. I welcome it


when Conservative Members manage to get their Government to eke out the money that will invest in such areas.
There is no substitute for a real and sensible pattern of public sector investment—a real programme that is organised around the public and private sectors working together to bring in that kind of investment. The private sector in the north-west has failed the north-west. It will continue to fail the north-west if we do not get new investment in new technology on a regular and consistent basis where it is needed. That is not happening. That is why we need the private sector to work with the public sector, and for the public sector to be given the institutions and mechanisms to invest in that area.
Give us our north-west development agency. Give us institutional financial agencies. Give money to local authorities. Give money to the public sector mechanisms that are prepared to make the economy work. We shall then have a chance. I freely concede what the hon. Gentleman said. There is a lot of good in the north-west—there is a lot of good in my area—and we have to enhance it. To turn away from the real problems that exist in manufacturing and service sectors blinds not only our community but central Government to the needs of our area. It is desperately important that we have a recognition. Let us enhance what we have. Let us enhance what is good there. Let us make sure that what is good there can thrive. It must be accepted by Conservative Members that, even now, it is not always in the state that we would like it to be in. Let us also not kid ourselves that when there are pockets of deprivation, if we are not prepared to make the public sector work, if we are not prepared to allow the public sector to help the private sector to work, we shall not be able to get investment in the areas that need it. We will not create the north-west that we want.
Opposition Members despair when Conservative Members claim what they want. As things stand, as long as they talk the rhetoric of a rosy future for the north, we shall not get that type of effort from the private and public sectors. A recognition of the real problems is what matters. We do not want simple words, whether they be from the Prime Minister or from anyone else. We want real action that is targeted to the unemployment problem, the need to create skills and the need to create investment in such key areas. That is not yet happening, and the north-west must begin to demand it.
We shall have the Government for the next four years. We have to work with them. We shall continue to press them not to kid themselves—they have their sycophants on the Government Back Benches—that things are going well in the north-west. The hon. Member for Stockport knows that he has one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the north-west, in his constituency. Nevertheless, without Government targeted action, unemployment in the north-west will not go away. The future of the north-west without the Government doing considerably more than they are now doing, will continue to be the social cancer, the social malaise from which we suffer. Conservative Members will do us all a favour if they press their Government to do more—privately; out of the headlines; we do not mind; simply do it. Without that, the north-west will not have the opportunity to go in the way that we all would want.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on his choice of the performance of the economy of the north-west as the subject for debate and on the excellent way in which he described the growth of the north-west, in contrast to what we heard from the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). I could not disagree more with the hon. Gentleman's comment that the northwest depends upon being spoon-fed by the Government.
I am very familiar with the turbo-generator industry, and I was working at Trafford Park at a time when I suspect that the hon. Gentleman was still in his pram. I know the industry there and I have worked in the Trafford plant. The future of that industry lies in competing in worldwide markets, not on the pattern of ordering power stations in this country.
If the Government have not ordered power stations in the past five years, it is because sufficient electricity has been generated by existing power stations. There is no point in building a power station that is not needed. The future of the industry depends upon the needs of the worldwide market, and that is where its success will lie.
The north-west economy depends upon the performance of individuals and firms which can see their opportunities to develop.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman touching on a fundamental point. When we have a world economy that does not want to order power stations, and a Government who deliberately choose not to order them, what do we do with an industry such as that? Do we say "OK. that industry is finished; it is no longer needed," or do we say, "By the time the 1990s come round we will want to order power stations and we will want those skills and technology, therefore we need to maintain the viability of that industry so that we can produce cheaply and efficiently at home"? The hon. Gentleman talked about world markets, but they have not been there. Unfortunately, that industry has hung on, both in the north-east and in the north-west, but not because of action by the Government.

Mr. Thurnham: This country's exports would not be at a record level and our share of world trade would not be rising if we were not able to take advantage of new markets that are developing. It is no good looking back to previous markets and imagining that in some way we can fossilise industries which were previously in demand. I am sure that if industries offer the best products they will always find markets for them. We should develop new products for new markets.
I invite hon. Members and my hon. Friend the Minister to visit Bolton to see what is happening there. Bolton and Bury are linked, because we are in the same travel-to-work area. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North spoke very well about what is happening in Bury. He will be well aware of the changing skyline in Bolton. There is a new mood of confidence developing in Bolton, and it is evident from the skyline.
The new town centre development is a visible sign of what is happening. We have a £60 million investment based on a £3,250,000 urban development grant. It was the biggest urban development grant of its kind when it was obtained, and it is an example of the leverage that can be obtained by successful partnership between central


Government, local government and the private sector. I congratulate my noble Friend the Duke of Westminster on the enormous investment that he has made in bringing about this new town centre development, which provides almost 250,000 sq ft of shopping space.
Bolton is an old-established market centre and that development provides visible evidence of its success. It is part of over £150 million of new investment that is in the pipeline for Bolton and the surrounding area. We have new transport links with the £30 million route 225 to the west, and a new rail link, of which my hon. Friend will be well aware. The Windsor link will provide a through line for the first time from Bolton to London. There is a £30 million investment in that line, in new rolling stock and in a new railway station at Bolton, which contributes to the advantages of the town for new industries.
I commend to my hon. Friend the Minister the new "Quarterly Economic Review" produced by Bolton district council. It is evidence of the strength and diversity of the economy and it lists some of the inquiries for industrial space and the sorts of industries which are seeking to come to Bolton. The industries vary from curtaining to carpets, cricket to computers, paint to pharmaceuticals and plastics to putty, as well as gas storage, tent manufacture and administrative facilities for a children's charity. We can see the enormous diversity that is the basis of the strength of the economy.
The hon. Member for Stretford appeared to doubt the growth in self-employment. I draw his attention to a booklet that has just been published by the Conservative Political Centre, based on the community programme schemes in Bolton which I was able to persuade the previous Minister to back. I recommend to the hon. Gentleman "Operation Longstop". He should note the figures for the growth of self-employment in the northwest. It has steadily increased year by year from 214,000 in 1979 to 280,000 in 1986. That is evidence of the way in which new jobs can be provided by people themselves, rather than looking to other employers or to the public sector.
The review described Bolton as being on the move and said that the most buoyant part of the property market was in small units. In 1986, 700,000 sq ft of property was let, but 70,000 sq ft of that was in units of fewer than 2,000 sq ft. Again, that is evidence of the growing demand by new and small firms. My hon. Friend the Minister will be well aware that Bolton Business Ventures is one of the leading enterprise agencies in the country, and claims to have helped to create more than 700 jobs since it was set up in 1983. I commend to my hon. Friend the work done by that agency to create new jobs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, in his excellent speech, spoke of the film makers sometimes giving the wrong image of the north. I am pleased to say that there are now signs of the film-making industry developing in the north-west, and it can create an image of what is happening there as part of the new industries arriving in the area.
Tourism is creating 50,000 jobs a year in the country as a whole. I am pleased that Opposition Members are no longer deriding the tourist industry as a candyfloss industry. It is making the most of our industrial heritage and showing what can be done. Real jobs of lasting value can be created. At the moment, Bolton has a heritage

centre being built in the Lion Yard, and that will add a feature to the town. One of the best attractions of the north-west is that the people can come to see the old industries actually working, as is evident at Styal Mill.
Unemployment in Bolton is now at its lowest level for five years. That shows that we are winning the battle to develop the economy, to generate new jobs and to show the town as one where prosperity will increase. I commend the efforts of the Bolton chamber of commerce, which celebrates its centenary this year, in helping to bring that about and showing the town in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said it must show itself. It must no longer denigrate itself or ask for its future to be dependent on Government handouts.
It is evident that the future of Bolton and other towns in the north-west is in the hands of the people. They are taking advantage of that, and other people should also come and take advantage while they can. Large properties are still on the market—;some of the old mills have been demolished, but there are still mill spaces that provide economical areas for people who want to move there. However, they will not be available for much longer. I join my hon. Friend in his call to people to come to the northwest to see what can be done and to live in an area which I feel is a much more pleasant area in which to live than the congested areas of the south-east.

Mr. Michael Jack: It is not often that one can make an unusual announcement at the beginning of a debate of this nature, but I wish to inform my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and others that the northwest has recently been visited by a man from Mars. Luckily he did not arrive in any form of extra-terrestrial vehicle. Instead, he was the guest of Granada Television as a member of the delegation that it brought to Blackburn as part of its "State of the Region" series.
I watched the programme with keen interest. The company took a delegation from Slough, included in which was a representative of Mars, the confectionery company. The members of it saw the low-cost housing, the low-cost industrial units and the help that had been given to the area. The reporter then put a microphone under the nose of a man from Mars and asked. "What do you think of it?" He replied, "I never knew that it was like this." The reporter asked, "What should we do in the north-west to try to promote the advantages which you have seen?" He replied, rather irreverently. "Get off your Burns and go and sell it." That was a man from a highly successful company from a highly successful part of the country. He was impressed, and he told us in the north-west to put forward our message.
I found the message of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) most depressing. I sent out a letter to the industrialists in Fylde asking them to set out the barriers to job creation in the north. I was staggered by the replies that I received. The managing director of a company called Dudley Industries, which produces the air dryers that we see at motorway service areas, wrote,
The north-south divide has no relevance to my company. It is simply the competitiveness with which we can produce that will get us the jobs.
It is that attitude of mind that is so important.
The hon. Member for Stretford referred to GEC. Perhaps he has not left the Manchester area to observe that GEC has substantial investments in Fylde with its


specialist mouldings division and in Preston with the traction division. It is necessary to travel around to get to know our region before making comments about where investment will take place.
I think that our constituents will be impressed that we choose to rise at an early hour to discuss the problems of the north-west. Many of those who are employed by the 3,500 manufacturing companies in Lancashire will be travelling to work now. I have a book entitled "Lancashire at Work," in which the phrase "county of opportunity" is used. That is a much more up-beat, positive message to put forward than that of the hon. Member for Stretford. Fifty of the 3,500 manufacturing companies employ between 500 and 45,000 people. That is not a message of depression.
It is interesting that earnings in the north-west were the third highest in the United Kingdom in 1986 at £198 per week. That says something about the strength of northwest industry and what it is doing. Value added is an interesting measure that relates to the sophistication of businesses in the region. In other words, how much can we contribute in value to basic raw materials? For the United Kingdom last year, value added per employee in manufacturing industry was £14,052. It was £14,266 in north-west, which took the region ahead of the west midlands, the east midlands and Yorkshre and Humberside. That is a sign of the strength of the region's economic performance.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to certain messages because I believe that the Government still have an important contribution to make in the development and renaissance of north-west industry. I ask them to remember the power of the public pound in terms of purchasing power with companies such as British Aerospace and British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. There is an opportunity for BNFL to receive orders for pressurised water fuel elements for the new power station at Sizewell. There will be new export opportunities. I hope that the Minister will hear his purchasing power in mind.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Jack: I shall not give way. I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that only a short time is available to me.
I wish to thank the Government for their continued support of the motor industry and their efforts to keep it moving. It is pleasing that over 50 per cent. of United Kingdom car production is produced at home. The spinoffs from help to that national industry affect the northwest. In Fylde, one small company called Sykes Pickavant won the garage tool of the year award. It is a little-known award that may seem to be insignificant but it is an example of how employment has been created by the help that has been given to the motor industry in even the smallest ways.
When Ministers talk with industry they should also talk to the financial markets. The Guardian Royal Exchange in my constituency is the classic example of the decampment of work down telephone lines, via the company's electronic office, to the company's data processing headquarters in Fylde. I wish that more people in the City would make such a move. It is a relatively easy one and the benefits, highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), of low cost houses and leisure facilities would be an attraction to anyone to get out of the overcrowded south-east.
I make a special plea for those parts of the north-west which are benefiting from tourism, but which still have high seasonal levels of unemployment. With regard to the Fylde coast, stretching from Fleetwood through to Blackpool, will the Minister give serious consideration to restoring its assisted area status? The Peel industrial estate, phase one, was fully let when that facility was available. However, now that assisted area status has been removed, phase two of the development of the industrial estate is struggling. I ask the Minister to reconsider sympathetically the Fylde coast.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: A Tory begging bowl.

Mr. Jack: I am not begging. I am making a request for consideration, and I know that the Minister will take greater note of the comments of my hon. Friends and myself than those from the Opposition Benches.
I wish to pay a compliment to a Cinderella industry that does not get discussed often—produce pre-packing. Produce pre-packing reflects the fact that, in Lancashire., we have the second largest amount of grade 1 agricultural land in the country. That land produces some splendid crops and they are packed by companies, such as L.O Jeffs, which is part of Northern Foods, and has a turnover of £16 million. That company, through its managing director and its entrepreneurial spirit, has shown that the natural advantages of the north-west, the locational advantages of the north-west, entrepreneurial spirit reacting to the needs of the major supermarkets and innovation are key elements in creating a company that started with a turnover of £5,000 after the war and now has a turnover of £16 million and employs 450 people.
That is the type of success story that I believe we should be promulgating throughout the north-west. I trust that the Minister will not just consider horticulture as part of agriculture. Horticulture is not party to the problems of the common agricultural policy. Horticulture provides a real opportunity for the north-west to exploit its natural advantages and create jobs.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): I welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) in highlighting the performance of the economy of the north-west. I represent part of the north-west and the red rose county of Lancashire and I am pleased that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to raise this matter.
I was delighted by the support that was given by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East ( Mr. Thurnham) for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and for Stockport (Mr. Favell). That support comprehensively saw off the speech of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) who adopted what we have come to expect as the traditional Labour approach to these matters. I believe that it is about time that the Labour party moved into the 20th century and realised that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde rightly said, the north-west needs to be talked up and sold.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North has already said that there is a great deal of good news that needs to be told with conviction if the extensive assets of the north-west are to be capitalised upon with increasing effectiveness. The continuing upswing in the economy as a whole provides the region with particular opportunities.
The north-west, with its broadly based manufacturing and commercial activities, is well placed to tackle the new


market opportunities at home and abroad. The United Kingdom economy is in its strongest position for years and the north-west is sharing in this economic resurgence that has been stimulated by Government policies of the past few years. We believe that the talents and skills of the individual can be released to create new wealth by adding value and finding new markets. Those policies are now paying dividends as output, productivity and profitability rise in the north-west in line with the rest of the country.
Inevitably, over the past two decades, employment in manufacturing has had to decline as a proportion of total employment in all major industrialised countries. In the late 1970s, overmanning and low productivity were especially prevalent in the United Kingdom. Therefore, with the onset of a world recession, which was not just confined to this country, there was bound to be a reduction in the numbers employed in companies that were aiming to survive. The north-west's manufacturing industry had to shed substantial numbers as a consequence, as we all know.
However, we need to see that in a wider perspective. Unemployment persists in all major EEC countries, but in the north-west new jobs are being created in the service industries through business start-ups and self-employment. The rate of unemployment is, therefore, declining. In June 1986 it stood at 14·6 per cent. and now it is down to 13·3 per cent. Overall, we do the region a great disservice if we fail to acknowledge that the north-west has successfully been creating a great many new jobs.
It is the Government's view that real economic growth can be sustained in the north-west, and elsewhere, only through the enterprise culture. The enterprise allowance scheme has, for example, done a great deal to encourage the growth in self-employment. In Manchester, for example, more than 4,000 people are now running their own businesses with the aid of the scheme.
At the same time, this large region retains a formidable range of major companies, underpinned by networks of smaller firms. Outside the south-east the north-west contributes the most in terms of GDP manufacturing output and employment to the United Kingdom as a whole. Over three quarters of the Financial Times top 100 companies are represented in the north-west. Companies from abroad have come to the region, liked what they found, and invested on a permanent basis.
As my hon. Friends have said, the region has an unrivalled transport network and the only international gateway airport outside London. Its highly skilled work force is better suited to advanced industrial activities than almost anywhere else in the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said, in the north-west we have the largest campus in western Europe, encompassing the universities of Manchester and Salford, the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, and various polytechnics.
However, I know that, despite those strengths, much of the region's industry has had to go through a major process of rationalisation over a protracted period. As part of that adjustment process, successive Governments have made regional financial assistance available. The northwest is receiving more of this type of assistance than any other English region. It has received £113 million in regional development grant for 1986–87 and £19 million in regional selective assistance in the same period.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde made the case for the Fylde coast and Blackpool, and as one who lives not a million miles from the area, as he well knows, I am sympathetic to the points that he has made. However, at this stage, I see no reason to change the map with the travel-to-work areas considered as he has referred to them.
The Merseyside development corporation was set up by the Government in 1981 to revive a depressed area of Liverpool. The corporation has spent in excess of £100 million. The private sector has responded to that, and the results are there for all to see. Indeed, only yesterday, on a visit to Liverpool, I was able to see a great deal of the tremendous work that has been done there. Liverpool successfully mounted the country's first international garden festival in 1984 which gave a lot of people in the north-west and other parts of the country a great deal of pleasure. The corporation also managed to restore the Albert dock warehouses, which is one of the finest groups of historic buildings in the country. I recommend anyone to go to see it because it is the most marvellous attraction. Partnership with the private sector is providing high-quality commercial development.
I recently had the opportunity of looking round the Salford quays project where an extensive derelict area is being transformed by commercial development, following Government funds to reclaim the infrastructure of the site. Again, it is well worth seeing the transformation that is taking place.
Back in Liverpool, the Wavertree technology park, which again I saw yesterday, has been created from 60 acres of derelict land with the help of a £6 million reclamation grant. At Speke, there is a proposal for Baltic Developments to colloborate with English Estates to develop yet another derelict site, which will eventually create 4,000 new jobs.
In Manchester, the Government have set up an urban development corporation at Trafford park, where, once more, Government help with infrastructure improvements is confidently expected to lead to about £500 million of new investment and up to 16,000 new jobs.
Even more recently, a private sector initiative has been announced to redevelop the Prince's and Waterloo docks in Liverpool with an investment of over £300 million, creating jobs for an estimated 5,000 people. Such expressions of confidence give me encouragement for the future of the north-west. Recently, announcements were made about setting up task forces in Preston and Rochdale to focus help on the local communities' attempts to restore pride, initiative and success to those deprived areas.
However, I must stress that we see the future performance of the north-west economy as relying at the end of the day on the enterprise of companies and individuals, not on Government intervention. We are trying to release the real potential and entrepreneurial energies of people in the north-west by creating an environment where they see genuine incentives for individual effort. I wish that some local authorities in the area could do more to recognise the importance of economic development. A crippling rates bill in some areas does not help companies to create jobs.
I emphasise yet again that we wish to co-operate with local authorities, not to confront them in the context of our inner-cities initiative. It was, therefore, instructive to go to Salford, as I did and meet the council which is cooperating in a big way. At the launch of the task-force initiative in Preston the Labour-controlled council made


it clear that it wishes to co-operate, and it is doing so. That is all to the good. It is much better to co-operate and take advantage of what is happening than to have a policy of confrontation and to refuse to accept that the Government's initiatives can be successful.
There are many signs that the economy in the northwest region is becoming stronger and that it has emerged from the recession in the early 1980s in much better shape to face the years ahead. Overall business confidence is strong and there is a general expectation that recent improvements will he sustained. The rate of investment has increased. The Ford motor company has recently spent £87 million on its Halewood plant in Merseyside. Again. I had the opportunity to visit that plant yesterday. Despite the history of the plant in years gone by when it featured largely in the public prints and the media for its problems, it has developed extremely well. There is a lesson in that for Ford and the rest of Merseyside. It has made achievements in personnel, industrial relations, investment and the quality of its products. I recommend all hon. Members to go and see what has been achieved by Ford.
Nabisco is investing more than £25 million in its biscuit factory at Aintree. Philips Dupont Optical is investing heavily in a new compact disc plant at Blackburn. In Workington, British Alcan Aluminium has recently announced a major modernisation of its high-duty aluminium extrusion plant. Many hon. Members will know how pleased I am that the British aerospace industry has had a successful year in the region not just with the major companies, but with the various supporting companies which play such a large part. I know how much my hon. Friends appreciate that.
Equally, British Nuclear Fuels, an important company, has done well. Its future might have been threatened if the Labour party had come to power, but not with the return of the Conservative Government. I know how pleased it is that things are going well and how successful and important the Springfield site is, which is located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde and employs some of my constituents.
At the same time, we have had difficulties in the motor industry. I know full well the particular problems of Leyland Bus and Leyland Truck, now Leyland DAF, how they have faced those difficulties and are now on the road to greater profits and security. Other high technology industries are equally vigorous in the area. Both ICL and Ferranti are respected worldwide as companies whose technology is as advanced as any of their international competitors.
Many companies in the more traditional sectors are also showing that it is possible to compete effectively against all corners by a combination of good management, marketing and timely investment in the latest manufacturing technologies. Coats Viyella is now spearheading a resurgence of the textile industry and Coloroll has become a major force in the home furnishing sector.
The service sector is also buoyant. Manchester is the biggest financial centre outside London. More than 40 international, foreign and merchant and other banks are

represented in Manchester, including three major international banks that have very recently come to the city. As hon. Members have said, Manchester international airport is growing rapidly, handling at present between 8 million and 9 million passengers a year. I cannot forgo the opportunity to mention in glowing terms the albeit smaller success that is brewing for Blackpool airport, so crucial to the Fylde coastal area, which often gets forgotten in the consideration of aviation activities in the north-west. I hope that that airport will continue to develop successfully.
The north-west has forged an increasingly effective regional policy in Inward which is promoting the region as an excellent location for inward investment. It is working closely with English Estates in the north-west to ensure that suitable locations are available for overseas companies to assess.
After what has been, even at this early hour, a sparkling debate, with many hon. Members putting the case for the north-west and arguing that the region has a lot going for it which perhaps other people do not appreciate, I recognise that a great many challenges still lie ahead, particularly in old urban areas where we must focus the experience and resources of the wider business community on identifying new market opportunities which, with imagination and determination, can attract new enterprises and generate additional employment.
I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde who, in his maiden speech not so long ago, used the expression directed at business men and others in the country to "Think North-West". That is extremely important. Talking down the north and the north-west does not help our prospects. We have a great deal going for us and we should make people realise our strengths, not our weaknesses. We are no different from other parts of the country in terms of the problems that face us. However, we want to ensure that people are aware that the north-west has an enormous amount going for it. People should come to us not only for communications reasons, but because the region is ideally located. I moved to the area 11 years ago and I would not move away for all the tea in China. It is a successful and attractive part of the country which should have more attention.
I believe that with the right approach the public and private sectors can work together to build on the natural strengths of the region and its people and bring real prosperity. In the long run, the health of the economy in the north-west must depend on giving the people who live there the opportunity to exercise their natural talents for entrepreneurialism, industry and commerce. If we can create the right conditions in which interprise can flourish, I know that the north-west will have a strong and prosperous future.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North on raising this subject for debate. I hope that his constituents and the constituents of other hon. Members who are present today will realise how much we care about the north-west and how important the north-west is to the future policies of the Government.

Orders of the Day — Tripartite Commission for the Restitution of Monetary Gold

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I offer my generous thanks to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the previous Conservative speakers for allowing me a little more than the five minutes I would have had had the previous debate run its full length. If my debate had taken place in a genuine sense, it would not have been related simply to the title that I have had to use, but would have referred to what is to happen to the remaining 7 tonnes of gold looted by the Nazis in the last war from the treasure chests of Europe and currently held in the Bank of England and the United States Federal Reserve, and when.
I understand that there are some 7,136 kg—approximately 7 tonnes—of gold, valued at Friday's gold price at about $100 million. I have never been able to understand why part of the gold is across the Atlantic. There is only one claim on that gold, that of the Albanian Government for about 2,400 kg. That leaves some 4,600 kg, almost 4·5 tonnes, of gold unclaimed and unused.
It was not my intention to develop the argument about the Albanian gold as a central issue. I intended to refer to it only in passing. I make it clear that I have no interest to declare other than curiosity, which arose after I talked to Ian Sayer, the author of "Nazi Gold", published in 1984. His book is essentially about the theft of gold from the German National Reserve in 1945. But some of that gold would have been destined for the body to be set up by the victorious allied powers—the tripartite commission referred to in the title of the debate. The commission's task was to distribute the gold stolen by the Nazis as restitution to countries in proportion to their respective losses through looting or wrongful removal to Germany. The tripartite commission did not make up the pool of gold, and it cannot be held responsible for any gold that it did not receive. That is another story altogether.
The commission, as records show, was set up under the 1946 Paris agreement on reparations. I do not believe that the authors of the eight short paragraphs, A to G, that make up part III of the agreement, relating to monetary gold, could have conceived in their wildest dreams that 41 years later the tripartite commission would still be in operation, and there would still be a pool of gold. The commission's function relates solely to the gold. It reminds me of the telling phrase used by Sir James Callaghan in 1979, during an exchange in the House about the Blunt affair, when he said that it was like the rustle of dead leaves.
Over the years much of the gold has been restored to its rightful owners, the last large shipment being of about 18 tonnes to the Czechs in 1982. I do not know what the total pool ever was. The tripartite commission works in secret, and I doubt that it will welcome today's parliamentary searchlight—or tiny spotlight—on its workings. I should like the Minister to tell me at some time, perhaps in correspondence, why it works in such secrecy. I do not know whether annual reports are made to anyone, but I know that the commission corresponds only with Governments, because from time to time inquiries are made to it about checking its records on the delivery of specific consignments of gold.
In short, the tripartite commission is an instrument of Government, the three commissioners answering to their respective Governments. We have had several commissioners over the years. At one time I expressed an interest in the expenses of the commission, which it obtains as a first charge on the pool of gold. That was a by-product of my inquiries. Late last year the Minister's predecessor, who is now at the Home Office, promised to check on the matter for me, but in March this year he finally wrote to me saying:
We cannot get the permission of our fellow Commissioners to release the information you requested".
The Minister kindly offered me another chat at the Foreign Office, following the one in March 1985 which the Prime Minister had arranged for me. However, I took the view then that after I had waited so long and had had protracted correspondence with the Prime Minister on the matter, it should have an airing in the House of Commons. It is all taking too long, in too much secrecy. It is about time that we put as much as possible of the second world war behind us.
I asked my first parliamentary question on the matter in May 1984. Between then and last Friday, the value of the gold pool increased by $40 million. I assume, therefore, that the commission's expenses have been met from that increase.
I am aware, from several exchanges with the Prime Minister and from meetings with Foreign Office officials, that the Government would like to settle the Albanian question, because that would release the rest of the gold for distribution. The Albanian question is tied up with matters which I would not dream of going into now, but which relate to the Corfu channel incident in 1946, when 44 British seamen and officers lost their lives after the mining of two ships. The Albanians will not pay the International Court of Justice claim until they get their gold, and the International Court of Justice has said that they should get the gold. It is a question of the chicken and the egg that is holding up the distribution of the other 4·5 tonnes of gold. That is why I felt that the issue should be raised.
I made a suggestion, which the Government have considered. Our claim against the Albanians is for less than £1 million in 1946 figures, which is very little compared with the value of the gold that the Albanians will receive from the tripartite commission. It would be quite easy to suggest taking it out before it had passed across. That suggestion has been considered, but it is not possible. One of the main reasons is that the French will not allow it. The French have good diplomatic relations and, as I have reminded Ministers, damned good trading relations, with Albania, which serves to keep out the British competition. That is partly what concerns me—that the stalemate of our present position could affect our trade.
It is a simplistic view, and I put it very briefly to the Minister. I shall send to him the speech that I would have made, so that we can discuss some of the questions that I ask in it.
The Prime Minister told me that the relatives of those who were killed in the Corfu channel incident would probably not understand the action, which seemed to be cutting corners in an effort to reach a settlement. The dependants will not gain from a settlement of the dispute, even though the Foreign Office has changed its language over the years—from a flat refusal, to the line that the


dependants are unlikely to benefit. I believe that they ought to benefit, because at that time the compensation was unfair. Wartime allowances were made for a peacetime incident, for which the allowances are different.
The Italians have placed a veto on a tripartite commission consisting of the French, the British and the Americans, simply because of the relationship between the Albanians and the Italian banks, where the gold was deposited, before the war. It is almost a quadripartite commission.
I want to place just a few of my questions to the Minister on the record. I do not intend to speak until 9 o'clock; that would be grossly discourteous to him. Discounting the Albanian gold, I want to know why the balance of the gold has to be held by the tripartite commission until the Albanian issue is settled and there are no more claims. Also, what is the precise weight of the remaining gold, excluding the Albanian gold, and it current value? Are my figures correct? Is the gold physically separated and labelled in the Bank of England, or is it just an accountancy matter, to keep it out of the reserves?
Does the Minister know, or do the Government know, how much of that gold has been used over the years for expenses, or is it a fact that the tripartite commission will tell nobody about this—even the allied Governments who form the commission? Is there any problem over interest claims on the United Kingdom award by the International Court of Justice against Albania, or is there a dispute about the value of the gold, which has vastly increased over the years? It was $35 an ounce in the 1940s; it is now between $440 and $446 an ounce.
Are the claimant countries all aware that the tripartite commission is holding gold that ultimately will be distributed to the claimant countries? Six Common Market countries, and also Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Jugoslavia will share the remaining gold after the disbursement to Albania. What, if any, steps are being taken to inform the recipients of the procedure that will be used for the final distribution? If there are none, are there any plans to do so?
I have two final questions, one of which relates to a parliamentary answer in April 1987. Why is it not possible to state now what procedures will be used for the final distribution? Are the procedures yet to be decided by the tripartite commission'? I referred in my parliamentary question to the fact that they had not been fixed. Does this mean that the procedures that were adopted for the earlier distributions of gold—which probably amounted,

according to one private estimate, to 250 million tonnes—are to be varied? If that is so, why? Why is it not to be simply a pro rata percentage of the claim that was met by the commission in the first place?
Finally, will the 30-year rule on the official papers run from the date of the Albanian settlement and the final distribution by the tripartite commission, or will they be disclosed immediately, given that the whole issue has now lasted for more than 40 years? Indeed, will such papers ever be released?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for allowing me three minutes in which to deal with this question, which has bedevilled various individuals for the last 41 years. It is absolutely typical of the hon. Member that, his attention having been caught by this interesting matter, he should have pursued it consistently and thoroughly.
In the short time that is available to me, I cannot deal with all the questions that the hon. Member has asked. I undertake to write to him, to comment on his questions and to deal with the full text of the speech that he would have made, had he had time to make it. I shall try to be as helpful as I can in my answers. Having pursued the matter over the past few years. he will be aware of the very severe constraints under which the Government operate in dealing with answers to these questions.
The commission consists of the United Kingdom, the United States and France. The commissioners are the respective commercial councillors in the relevant embassies in Brussels. They meet from time to time as and when the meetings become necessary.
The amount that is currently held by the commission is some 7,000 kg. Once the Albanian portion has been delivered the residue will be handed to the various local original claimant countries in proportion to their earlier allocation. The procedures to be used when this time arrives have not been established but will be determined by the tripartite commission. The twin problems of the gold allocated to Albania that is held in the custody of the tripartite commission and the payment by Albania of the Corfu channel claim have bedevilled relations between the United Kingdom and Albania and have bedevilled efforts to try to wind up the tripartite commission.

It being Nine o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — Dyslexia

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

9 am

Mr. David Amess: Dyslexic or not dyslexic, that is the question. At least, it is a question that is posed by many parents who are desperately concerned about the progress that their offspring are making at school.
I shall not waste time by discussing whether the Department of Education accepts that there is such a thing as dyslexia; I shall assume that it does.
Many right hon. and hon. Members are concerned about this matter. I am delighted to note the presence of the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is present and I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during the debate. Many hon. Members have contacted me about this debate, including the hon. Member for Bolton, South-West (Mr. Sackville), who also wishes to catch your eye briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame Peggy Fenner) has a related constituency problem. She hoped to be here this morning and I know that it is a subject that she wishes to take up with the Minister in due course.
Some 30 years ago I was a child with special learning difficulties. I fully appreciate how lucky I was to be identified as such a child and have the problem dealt with quickly. At the age of five I was apparently known as "Double Dutch". I had a very bad stutter and could not make the sound "ST" and "TH" and I needed my sister to act as my interpreter.
I attended St. Anthony's school in Forest Gate and sat in a class of about 50 children. My teacher, Miss Grey, asked to see my mother after school and explained to her that she thought that I had special learning difficulties.
For about three years I went to a speech therapist and the dentist fixed me up with braces on my teeth. If today I am able to communicate it is due to the dedication of that teacher and the provision that I was afforded.
For 18 months I taught at a junior mixed school, St. John the Baptist in Bonner Road, Bethnal Green. I specialised in teaching children who were described as ESN. They often turned out to be the most unruly children in classes and unfortunately were all lumped together, but I did my best under difficult circumstances.
Dyslexia is a special learning difficulty that results in a specific and persistent difficulty with reading, spelling, written prose and sometimes arithmetic. There is a discrepancy between the child's literary skills and his intelligence and abilities in other spheres. It occurs in spite of adequate educational provision and is independent of socio-cultural background. In addition to difficulties with the written language the individual may also have difficulties with orientation, time, short-term memory, sequencing, auditory or visual perception and motor skills.
There is a danger that some parents who feel that their children are not making progress will automatically assume that their child is dyslexic. I Would not wish to be part to an outbreak of dyslexia throughout Essex or the country. My hon. Friends and I fully understand parents' anxieties about their children not making the progress their parents expect. I willingly pay tribute to the work of

the British Dyslexia Association for the way in which it has tried to help parents who have experienced difficulties in obtaining adequate educational provision for their children. I have had the honour of being made the first president of the Essex Dyslexia Association which was formed to assist parents with information on how to get the right help for the children.
As we all know, the Education At 1981 requires local education authorities to provide for proper assessment of children. That procedure can take a long time. We have already experienced some unfortunate delays in Essex and in my constituency of Basildon. After the assessment stage, the child must have a statement of his disability drawn up. From the time of the recognition of the problem to the final statement of disability, over two years may have passed. To alleviate some of the problems, an informal assessment can be made, but if the child shows signs of disability, he must go on to a formal assessment so that he can have a statement made. Even after that, it can often prove difficult to get adequate help for him.
I pay tribute to Essex county council and its education department. They are trying to provide education in difficult circumstances in the largest county in the country and to cope with ever-changing needs. However, I shall ask them to do more for children with special learning difficulties. At the moment, parents in Essex have to hope that a place is available for their child in a boarding school in another county or, if their child has not been diagnosed behaviourally disturbed as well as afflicted with a learning disability, they must be content with remedial teachers working with the child a few hours a week. Remedial teachers, however, are not necessarily trained in the methods of multi-sensory programmes used to assist dyslexic children to learn.
Because of the delays in assessments and statements and in locating proper facilities for teaching, a child may be almost ready to leave school before adequate training has been found. There is a clear need in Essex for more provision for special education for those with learning disabilities. Although I would not wish such children to be labelled "different", with may cases there is little alternative than to provide special tuition in a separate school.
I particularly welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), who has a special interest in this matter. I should have thought that there was a strong case for Essex county council to turn one of the schools which, unfortunately, had to close because of falling numbers into a centre for the provision of intensive tuition for chidren with special educational needs. Such an arrangement would surely make sense from an educational and a financial point of view. Naturally, I would be particularly delighted if the centre were sited near my constituency of Basildon and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point.
It is difficult to know how many children are affected by learning disorders, as the assessment/statement process includes all ranges of physical handicaps. When children with physical handicaps are evaluated, it is often easier to assess their needs and adequate provision is more easily arranged. I ask for those with learning disabilities to be given the same consideration and opportunities as other children. When a dyslexic person takes a driving test, if he presents the evaluator with a note saying that he is dyslexic, his test will be arranged to suit his condition and circumstances. Essex university's open university


programme will make special provision for dyslexic people. However, I am concerned that few dyslexic people will reach the stage where they seriously consider university education, because they believe that the education they have already received is adequate. I believe that there are nowhere near enough teachers who are trained in regard to special learning difficulties.

Mr. Tom Sackville: I have a particular interest in this subject because we have a dyslexia institute at Horwich in my constituency where there are skilled teachers. The institute is for the children of parents who can afford to pay to have their children specially coached. Children who are referred to the education authority as dyslexic are not taught in that specialist manner. Whether it is a matter of teachers or psychologists getting their act together I am not sure, but I know that there is an injustice and that dyslexic children in my constituency are not getting the help that they deserve.

Mr. Amess: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention and support what he says.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has visited my constituency and seen some of the excellent work that is being done in some schools there, will encourage local education authorities to release teachers for training in this important area. If local education authorities put a programme for training teachers into effect immediately, I should like my hon. Friend to tell me whether there would be enough staff to meet the needs of children. Does the Department intend to have remedial teachers sufficient to meet children's needs in a certain number of schools, does it intend to release dyslexic children for private tuition for which the local education authority will cover the cost, or does it intend education authorities to set up their own units which dyslexic children can attend full or part-time according to need?

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he think that it would be sensible to enable dyslexic children to take examinations by having the questions read to them by specially trained teachers or a tape recording? Now. they may be able to pass an examination but cannot read the questions.

Mr. Amess: I am grateful for that intervention. My initial reaction is that I have no objection to that. We have oral French examinations and an oral part of the English examination already.
I am not entirely convinced that this important subject has been given enough attention. I draw on my own experience 30 years ago when I was one of the lucky children. I hope that, after this debate, others will be given extra help.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) for raising the subject of dyslexia with such sensitivity and understanding.
It is high time that the plight of children who have a normal intelligence quotient but who suffer from learning difficulties which have grown worse because they were not identified early enough—despite pleas from their parents—was properly examined by the authorities.
Two cases have been brought to my attention recently by frustrated parents. These suggest that the Essex

education authority is failing in its statutory duty to ensure that such children receive their right under the Education Act 1944 to be educated according to their needs. One reason is that no directive is given to teachers to identify such children early and to refer them without delay to an educational psychologist. Essex does not seem to recognise—and I am speaking more bluntly than did my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon—that special teaching is required for dyslexic children and that to lump them together with other under-achievers in what was called before the 1981 Act a school for educationally sub-normal children is utterly wrong and should be changed.
One child in my constituency has been right the way through the system without any help. He is now 16. He is intelligent, he is capable of verbal reasoning, he understands his condition and he can converse sensibly, but he has been turned out educationally backward because of the absence of spcial teaching that only properly qualified teachers can provide. It is a disgraceful state of alloirs and I wonder how many more children are affected.
Another child in my constituency has an above average IQ. He needs what is called a multi-sensory programme, of which there are a number of variations, which can be geared to individuals. Nothing like that is provided in Essex. There is a complete failure so far on the part of the local education authority to understand the problem. Intervention takes place only when a child becomes so frustrated and his behavioural problems become so distressing that he has to be sent away outside the county to a boarding school, at great expense to the ratepayers. That is madness and it should stop. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take the matter seriously and to put in hand steps to improve the situation.
The time has come for a directive to local education authorities. I hope that heed will be paid to the practical suggestions that were made by my hon. Friend. There is a great deal of sense in what my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) said only a few moments ago. These children deserve a much better deal than they have been getting.

Mr. David Wilshire: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Does the hon. Member have the agreement of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and the Minister to intervene? I gather that he does.

Mr. Wilshire: I thank the House for allowing me to intervene without giving notice. It was brought to my attention overnight that an institute based in Staines in my constituency specialises internationally in training teachers as well as helping children. It trains teachers to teach dyslexic children in ordinary state schools, and it has now launched an appeal for £1,500,000.
The best way of helping people is for the Department to contribute to that appeal, rather than to set up another training scheme. That institution has an international reputation, is visited by presidents, royalty and celebrities and is supported by charitable contributions. If the House wishes to make progress in the training of teachers so that children do not have to be sent away, this institute in Staines can help. Therefore, I wonder whether the Minister will see if the Department can support that appeal.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Dunn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on his superb election victory in Basildon recently and on his success in obtaining the Adjournment debate this morning on a subject of long-standing interest and concern to the House, and to the parents of children with specific learning difficulties all over the country. My hon. Friend has shown a particular concern for children with a range of special education needs and learning difficulties. No one could fail to be moved by the account that he gave of his own experiences over 30 years ago.
I open my response to this short but important debate by trying to dispel a myth—that the Department of Education and Science and its Ministers do not recognise dyslexia as a problem. The Government recognise dyslexia and recognise the importance to the education progress of dyslexic children, their long-term welfare and successful-function in adult life, that they should have their needs identified at an early stage. Once the assessment has been made—and I note the points made by my hon. and right hon. Friends today—the appropriate treatment should be forthcoming.
I know that there are some local education authorities, which as a matter of policy, refuse to accept the word dyslexia. They argue that there are very few children who present a common pattern of dyslexic symptoms. Certainly there is no one characteristic which defines a child as dyslexic or not dyslexic. There is a range of criteria, and a child who shows a particular pattern of difficulties may be termed dyslexic. Whether or not the term is used, the important thing is to be sure that something is being done about the problem.
So, what are we doing? Perhaps I can best start by using the definition which the noble Lord Ritchie used when introducing a debate on this subject in another place earlier this year. He said that dyslexia is a disorder in children who, despite conventional classroom experience, fail to attain the language skills of reading, writing and spelling commensurate with their intellectual abilities. That definition was made by the World Federation of Neurology as long ago as 1968, and some experts have subsequently added to that definition difficulty in handling figures.
The House will know that the issue has been considered by a number of committees who have advised successive Secretaries of State. In the light of this advice, the Department of Education and Science takes the view that there are children with severe and long-term difficulties in one or more areas whose general ability is at least average and for whom distinctive special arrangements are necessary. This normally takes the form of good remedial teaching in ordinary schools. The term "specific learning difficulties" seems to provide the best description of these children's problems, since it denotes the existence of an educational problem for which help is required, but without implying any definite cause or exclusive category.
Under the Education Act 1981, which came into force on 1 April 1983, local education authorities are under a duty to assess the needs of those children brought to their attention as having, or possibly having, special educational needs. Parents too, may ask for an assessment of their child's educational needs, and local education authorities must comply with the request unless it is, in

their opinion, unreasonable. Such educational needs, of course, include dyslexia, as well as blindness, deafness and physical handicaps among other things. I should add that health authorities also have a duty to inform local education authorities of any child under the age of five who may have special educational needs. Those duties cover children with all forms of hearing difficulties, including those associated with dyslexia. What is more important, the 1981 Act requires local education authorities to ensure that the needs of children who have been identified as having special educational need are met.
Section 1 of the Act defines a child who has special educational needs as a child who has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him. The section goes on to define a "learning difficulty" by reference to a child with a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of his age, or one who has a difficulty which either prevents him or hinders him from making use of educational facilities of a kind generally provided in school, within the area of his local education authority for children of his age. Thus, special educational provision is defined as educational provision which is additional to, or otherwise different from, the educational provision made generally for children of his age in schools maintained by the LEA concerned.
The Warnock committee estimated that up to 20 per cent. of school children might have some kind of special educational need at some time during their school days. It does not, however, follow that all 20 per cent. will be the subject of a statement made and maintained under the procedures in sections 5 and 7 of the 1981 Act. That is necessary only for those children whose educational needs are such as to call for the LEA to determine the provision which needs to be made for them.
The provisions of the Education (Special Needs) Regulations 1983 made under the Act are perhaps less well known than the provisions of the Act itself. Under the regulations, it is required that the people making assessments of children are qualified educational psychologists. All such educational psychologists will have been teachers before taking up the specialism. Also included must be the advice of a qualified medical practitioner and of the headteacher. Consequently, the people involved in making assessment are, or I truly believe should be, well qualified to reach the right decision.
There will be complaints that different authorities will make different provision for children presenting with broadly the same range of problems. Let me emphasise again that LEAs are under a duty to make available appropriate provision to meet the needs of all children identified as having special educational needs, whether or not they are the subject of a statement. The Department's circular 1/83 indicates that a statement is appropriate for all those children who have complex learning difficulties, as well as in all cases where a child is based in a special unit attached to an ordinary school, a special school, a non-maintained special school or an independent school approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose. On the other hand, formal procedures are not appropriate where ordinary schools make special educational provision from their own resources in the form of additional tuition or remedial provision, nor in normal circumstances for those children who attend a reading centre or a unit for disruptive pupils.
That is all well-known to hon. Members, but, in response to the comments made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, I shall bring to the attention of the Secretary of State the points that they have urged upon us in terms of direct action. If there is anything that we can do to tighten up any of the procedures that lie before us in the form of statutory or legal requirements, we shall be more than willing to consider such action as is represented to us on this occasion and from time to time in future. The 1981

Act, which governs most of the debate, was a major step forward. Clearly, concerns have been echoed by many hon. Members, not just today but in the past and, I am sure, will be echoed in the future. I undertake to bring this important matter immediately to the attention of the Secretary of State.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty seven minutes past Nine o'clock on Tuesday morning.